THE PUBLIC VALUE OF GOV 2.0: THE CASE OF VICTORIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AUSTRALIA

Transcription

1 THE PUBLIC VALUE OF GOV 2.0: THE CASE OF VICTORIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AUSTRALIA Khayri H. M. Omar DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 2015 SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

2 Abstract No tools to assess the value generated from the use of Government 2.0 (Gov 2.0) initiatives are currently available. This research study aims to investigate the public value of Gov 2.0 in Victorian local governments. In order to achieve the research aims, this study develops a theoretical framework by hypothesising the critical public values for evaluating the literature on public value of Gov 2.0. The framework draws together the elements of Public Value as determined by Moore (1995), Kelly et al. (2002), Kearns (2004), and the public values inventory by Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007). This research uses a mixed methods approach. In Phase 1 of the study, Victorian local government officials and administrators were interviewed to understand their aim towards public value creation. The data collected from Victorian residents were then used to validate the theoretical framework using structural equation modelling (Phase 2). The findings of the quantitative phase were further explored using thematic analysis of the interview data collected from residents (Phase 3). The findings of the three phases were then triangulated in order to gain indepth understanding of the public value of Gov 2.0 in Victorian local government. A new framework is proposed based on the critical public values identified consisting of three main areas of public trust in government, delivery of quality public services, and the achievements of social outcomes. The investigation of the public value of Gov 2.0 initiatives in Victorian local government using the proposed framework leads to some recommendations for increasing public value generated through the use of Gov 2.0 initiatives in local government. This study makes a significant contribution to both theoretical and practical perspectives in the information systems domain. From a theoretical perspective, this study validates the ability of the concept of Public Value to assess the contribution of Gov 2.0 initiatives towards public value creation. The study develops a new framework that will extend the use of public value evaluation into the Gov 2.0 environment. The new framework addresses the main shortcomings of previous frameworks, as none of them have been developed on the basis of evaluating the public value of Gov 2.0, where social media tools are employed in government service delivery and interaction with their citizens. From a practical perspective, this research study offers an in-depth understanding using three phases of investigation of the public value of Gov 2.0 in Victorian local government. i

3 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I thank Allah (subhana wa taala) for endowing me with health, patience, and knowledge to complete this work. I wish to express my appreciation and gratitude to all those who inspired, encouraged, supported, assisted and were patient with me during the five years that I have been undertaking this award. My parents, Hamed Mohamed and Albia Awon, who worked tirelessly to provide me with the best possible educational opportunities. You supported me, encouraged me and inspired me to strive for excellence in all my endeavours. Associate Professor Helana Scheepers and Associate Professor Rosemary Stockdale, my supervisors and counsel. You are true supporters and wonderful mentors. Thank you for your patience throughout the years and for always believing in me. Your insight, guidance and valuable direction have been immensely helpful throughout my candidature. Thank you for your assistance, encouragement and friendship. It is very much appreciated. My wife, Fathiya, who always stands by me, through thick and thin. My children, who have patiently waited in the wings while I pursue my professional career. I think my formal education journey is now complete. I hope that this inspires you to continue on your lifelong learning journey. My sponsors, Libyan Government and Swinburne University of Technology, for generously supporting me with resources and training throughout my candidature. I could not have finished this research without your support. It is highly appreciated. Libyan ambassador in Australia, Mr Musbah Allafi and the cultural attaché Dr Omran Zwed. Thank you for your great support. It is very much appreciated. RISO (Research into Information System in Organizations) director Professor Judy McKay and all the members, many thanks for all, you are great advisors. My thanks also to Dr Diane Brown for her valuable help editing and proof reading. Thank you to each and every one of you from the bottom of my heart. You have all been an essential and integral part of this journey. ii

4 Declaration I certify that except where due acknowledgement has been made, this thesis is my own work and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made. The thesis contains no material which has been accepted for previous academic awards, in whole or part.... Khayri Hamed OMAR December, 10 /07/ 2015 iii

5 Publications The following papers have been published based on this PhD research: 1. E-government service quality assessed through the public value lens. This paper assesses the role of e-government service quality in the creation of public value from the citizens perspective. By assessing the added value of e-government services through a public value lens, we aim to explore more deeply how e-government service quality impacts upon public value creation. We propose a conceptual framework based on theoretical perspectives of public value and e-service quality to support the examination of e-government service quality from the citizens viewpoint. An exploration of the literature on public value, e-service quality, and e-government indicates that the creation of public value is highly dependent on the level of quality of a service delivered by a public organisation. The framework draws together the elements of public value as determined by Moore (1995) and Kelly et al. (2002), and quality dimensions from the updated IS success model by DeLone and McLean (2003). Omar, K., Scheepers, H. & Stockdale, R. (2011a). E-government service quality assessed through the public value lens. Electronic Government. Springer. 2. How Mature is Victorian Local E-Government: An Overall View? The purpose of this empirical study is to analyse the level of maturity of e-government in Victorian local government. The study will help to determine the extent to which Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) help local governments to provide citizens with more transparent and advanced services, and to close the gap between the government and its citizens. Analysis of 30 local government websites was conducted using 52 evaluation variables (items) in a questionnaire. The evaluations were performed from 1 March to mid July 2011 on 38% of all Victorian council websites. The results of this study show that e-government initiatives in Victorian local government have achieved considerable levels of maturity in terms of transparency and interactivity. However, this maturity is hindered by the low level of website usability. The main contribution of this study is that it provides a clear picture as to the maturity of Victorian local government websites. iv

6 Omar, K., Scheepers, H. & Stockdale, R. How mature is Victorian local e-government: An overall view. ACIS, 2011b Sydney. Proceedings of the 22nd Australasian Conference on Information Systems 2011, Paper Adoption of social media in Victorian local governments. The use of the Internet and social media tools by Australians has increased significantly over the last five years. Social media tools provide local governments with the opportunity to inform serve and interact with their constituents on a level not previously possible. This paper uses a mixed method approach to firstly review current use of social media tools by Victorian local governments and secondly interview elected officials and administrators of four Victorian local councils about barriers to the adoption of social media tools. The results show that while 59 Victorian local governments (74%) are utilizing at least one social media tool, there are 20 councils (25%) that still do not utilise social media tools. The interviews indicate that the main barriers hindering social media implementations are: uncertainty, fear of risk, lack of knowledge and experience, lack of resources, lack of trust and, the culture of government. The main contribution of this study is a review of the current level of adoption of social media tools by Victorian local governments and identifies a number of barriers that prevent local government from fully utilizing the advantages of social media tools. Currently most Victorian local governments use social media to disseminate information. Omar, K., Scheepers, H. & Stockdale, R. Adoption of social media in Victorian local governments. ACIS 2012: Location, location, location. Proceedings of the 23rd Australasian Conference on Information Systems, ACIS, The use of social media in Government 2.0 assessed through the public value lens. This paper investigates the role of social media in the creation of public value by local governments. By assessing the added value of social media through a public value lens, we aim to explore more deeply how the use of social media tools impact upon public value creation. We propose a conceptual framework based on the theoretical perspectives of public value concepts and public value inventories to support the examination of Gov2.0 services. An exploration of the literature indicates that the creation of public value is highly dependent on three main sources: development of public trust in government, delivery of quality public services, and the achievement of v

7 socially desirable outcomes. The framework draws together the elements of public value as determined by Moore (1995) Kelly et al. (2002), Kearns (2004), and the public values inventory by Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007). Omar, K., Scheepers, H. & Stockdale, R The use of social media in Government 2.0 assessed through the public value lens. Australasian Conference on Information Systems. Melbourne, Australia: Association for Information Systems. 5. Social Media Use in Local Government: An Australian Perspective. Social media offers governments extensive opportunities to engage with citizens, particularly at the local level. This study investigates the issues that local governments face in implementing social media initiatives. It builds on existing literature by using an interpretive approach to examine the perceptions of public employees and elected officials of local councils in an Australian context. The article reports on the issues that inhibit a move to a more interactive use of social media and examines how these may be addressed. Implications for research and practice are given. Omar, K., Stockdale, R. & Scheepers, H Social media use in local government: An Australian perspective. International Journal of Public Administration, 37, vi

8 Table of Contents Abstract... i Acknowledgements... ii Declaration... iii Publications... iv Table of Contents... vii List of figures... xi List of tables... xii List of abbreviations... xiv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Background to the Study Research Aims, Questions, and Objectives Research aims and questions Research objectives Research Methodology Contributions of the Study Structure of the Thesis CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction The Evolution Process of E-government Definitions of e-government E-government evolution E-government and Web Government Public Value Gov 2.0 and Public Value Creation Gov 2.0 and public trust in government Gov 2.0 and public service quality Gov 2.0 and social outcomes Public Value Evaluation Chapter Summary CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Theoretical Background Theoretical Framework Development of public trust Quality of public services Achievement of social outcomes Theoretical framework hypothesis...66 vii

9 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Introduction Research Approaches Philosophical perspectives Research design Research Strategy Timing choice Weighting choice Mixing choice Context of the Case E-government development at the federal level E-government development at state and local levels in Victoria Current situation of Australian e-government maturity Sample Selection Implementation of Sequential Mixed methods Data Analysis Research Reliability Research Validity Ethical Considerations Chapter Summary CHAPTER 5: INTERVIEWS WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS AND ADMINISTRATORS (PHASE 1) Introduction Data Collection Procedures Targeting potential interviewees Designing interview questionnaire Gaining access to interviewees Conducting interviews Data Analyses Local Government Aims toward Public Value Creation Motivations behind the implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives Strategies implemented Evaluation methods in use Local Government Views toward Examined Public Values Discussion Local government aim towards public value creation Values in line with local government activities Development of public trust in government Improving the quality of public services Achievement of social outcomes Chapter Summary CHAPTER 6: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE WITH CITIZENS (PHASE 2) Introduction viii

10 6.2 Survey Development Procedures Data Collection Sample selection Sample size Survey respondents profile Data Analysis Data screening Assessment for normality Reliability of the questionnaire Measurement Model CFA of the full measurement model assessment of fit Analysis of one-factor congeneric measurement models Public trust construct congeneric analysis Service quality construct congeneric analysis Social outcomes construct congeneric analysis Construct validity and reliability Final measurement for model validity Phase 2 Findings of the Survey Questionnaire with End Users (Citizens) Chapter Summary CHAPTER 7: FINDINGS OF CITIZENS INTERVIEWS (PHASE 3) Introduction Data Collection Procedures Targeting potential interviewees Designing interview questionnaire Conducting interviews Data Analysis Citizens Perceptions of Trust in Government Responsiveness User democracy Citizens involvement Self-development Dialogue Listening to public opinion Openness Professionalism Honesty Integrity Accountability Citizens Perceptions of Quality of Public Services Adaptability Reliability Stability Timeliness Robustness Friendliness User orientation Citizens Perceptions of Social Outcomes Fairness ix

11 7.6.2 Equity Social cohesion Public interest Common good Chapter Summary CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSION Introduction Quantitative Phase Findings Role of Gov 2.0 in Public Value Creation Development of public trust Quality of public services delivered Achievements of social outcomes Revised Framework for Evaluating the Public Value of Gov Validity of Instrument and the Overall Study Results Recommendations Chapter Summary CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSIONS Introduction Reflection on Research Questions Critical Reflections on the Creation of Public Value in the Gov 2.0 Environment Main Findings of the Study Research Contributions Contributions to Theory Contributions to Practice Reflection on Research Strengths and Limitations Addressing Research Objectives Suggestions for Future Research Concluding Remarks BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES Appendix A: Invitation to participate in the research (Phase 1) Appendix B: Explanatory statement (Phase 1) Appendix C: Interviews consent form Appendix D: Interview questionnaire public officials (Phase1) Appendix E: Invitation and survey (Phase 2) Appendix F: Invitation to participate in the research (Phase 3) Appendix G: Explanatory statement (Phase 3) Appendix H: Interview questionnaire end users (citizens) (Phase 3) Appendix I: Ethics Approval Appendix J: List of Publications x

12 List of figures Figure 1.1: Structure of the thesis Figure 2.1: Components of e-government (Heeks, 2006b) Figure 2.2: Evolutionary model for e-government (Layne and Lee (2001) Figure 2.3: Different operational definition of Web 2.0 (adapted from Alam & Lucas, 2011) Figure 2.4: Evolution of the utilisation of Web 2.0 in government (Anttiroiko, 2010) Figure 2.5: Strategic triangle (Moore, 1995) and public value main sources (Kelly, 2002) Figure 2.6: e-government Economics Project (egep) measurement framework (European Commission, 2006) Figure 2.7: Framework for concepts and relational pathways for public value production (Grimsley & Meehan, 2007) Figure 2.8: Indicators for government portals assessment and their impact on public value (Golubeva, 2007) Figure 2.9: Conceptual framework for evaluating public value of e-government (Karunasena & Deng, 2011) Figure 3.1 Proposed theoretical framework for evaluating the public value of Gov Figure 3.2 Evaluation of development of public trust in government through Gov Figure 3.3: Evaluation of quality of public service delivered through Gov Figure 3.4: Evaluation of the achievement of social outcomes through Gov Figure 3.5: Theoretical framework hypothesis for evaluating public value of Gov Figure 4.1: Framework for research design (Creswell, 2009) Figure 4.2: Research methods and procedures Figure 4.3: Three aspects of Australian Government 2.0 (Government 2.0 Taskforce) Figure 4.4: Sequential multiphase mixed methods design Figure 6.1: Initial measurement model Figure 6.2: Initial one-factor congeneric measurement model for public trust Figure 6.3: Re-specified one-factor congeneric measurement model of public trust Figure 6.4: Initial one-factor congeneric measurement model of service quality Figure 6.5: Re-specified one-factor congeneric measurement model of service quality Figure 6.6: Initial one-factor congeneric measurement model of social outcomes Figure 6.7: Re-specified one-factor congeneric measurement model of social outcomes Figure 6.8: Final measurement model of public value of Government Figure 8.1: How public value is created in the Gov 2.0 environment Figure 8.2: Revised framework for evaluating the public value of Gov xi

13 List of tables Table 2.1: Subcategories of e-government (Yildiz, 2007) Table 2.2: Classifications of Web 2.0 applications (adapted from Anttiroiko, 2009) Table 2.3: Differences between e-government and social media use in the public sector (Mergel, 2012) Table 2.4: Paradigms of public sector management (Kelly, et al. 2002) Table 2.5: Category of public values (Jørgensen &Bozeman, 2007) Table 3.1 A summary of the dimensions and indicators of the theoretical framework Table 5.1: Participants codes at each government level Table 5.2: Participants codes, characteristics and roles Table 5.3: Victorian local government motivations behind the implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives Table 5.4: Examples of local government officials and administrators views toward development of public trust Table 5.5: Examples of local government officials and administrators views toward quality of public services delivered Table 5.6: Examples of local government officials and administrators views toward achievements of social outcomes Table 5.7: Public values behind the implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives Table 6.1: Survey questions linked to the values and areas investigated Table 6.2: Survey participants gender Table 6.3: Survey participants age group Table 6.4: Survey participants education level Table 6.5: Survey participants motivations behind their use of council websites Table 6.6: Reliability of the Questionnaire Table 6.7: Goodness-of-fit cut-off values Table 6.8: The standardised factor loadings for the Public Trust Table 6.9: Standardised residual among public trust construct observed variables Table 6.10: The standardised factor loadings for the service quality Table 6.11: Standardised residual among service quality construct observed variables Table 6.12: The standardised factor loadings for the Social Outcome Table 6.13: Standardised residual among social outcomes construct observed variables Table 6.14: Initial and re-specified congeneric measurement models of GOF results Table 6.15: Convergent validity test results of re-specified constructs Table 6.16: Discriminant validity Table 6.17: Regression coefficient results for the model hypotheses Table 7.1: Interviewees demographic xii

14 Table 8.1: Gov 2.0 public values Table 8.2: Summary of the creation of public values related to public trust in government through Gov Table 8.3: Summary of the creation of public values related to quality of public services through Gov Table 8.4: Summary of the creation of public values related to social outcomes through Gov xiii

15 List of abbreviations ABS: Australian Bureau of Statistics AGFI: Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index AGIMO: Australian Government Information Management Office AMOS: Analysis of Moment Structures ASDO: Achievement of Socially Desirable Outcomes CFA: Confirmatory Factor Analysis CFI: Comparative Fit Index CR: Critical Ratio Df : Degree of Freedom DOPCD: Department of Planning and Community Development EFA: Exploratory Factor Analysis GFI: Goodness-of-Fit Index GOF: Goodness-of-Fit Gov 2.0: Government 2.0 IBM: International Business Machines ICT: Information and Communication Technology IS: Information Systems KMO: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin K-S: Kolmogorov-Smirnov MI: Modification Indices ML: Maximum Likelihood MMV: Multimedia Victoria NBN: National Broadband Network NFI: Normed Fit Index NPM: New Public Management NPV: Net Present Value OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development P: Probability value PGFI: Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit PNFI: Parsimony Normed Fit Index xiv

16 PR: Parsimony Ration PSI: Public Sector Information QUAL: Qualitative QUAN: Quantitative RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation RMSR: Root Mean Square Residual RNI: Relative Non-centrality Index RQ: Research Question RSS: Really Simple Syndication SE: Standard Error SEM: Structural Equation Modelling SFL: Standardised Factor Loadings SNS: Social Network Sites SPSS: Statistical Package for Social Sciences SR: Standardised Residual SRMR: Standardised Root Mean Residual SRW: Standardised Regression Weights SUHREC: Swinburne University Higher Research Education Committee TLI: Tucker-Lewis Index UGC: User-Generated Content URW: Un-standardised Regression Weight X2/Df: Normed chi-square or the ratio of x2 to degree of freedom X2: Chi-square xv

17 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY Creating public value is becoming the primary goal of e-government using Web 2.0 technologies (United Nations, 2014). Web 2.0 and its social media tools are thus being extensively adopted by the public sector around the globe (Noveck, 2009). Social media tools build on Web 2.0 technology applications and are considered to be the next generation of official government websites (Bonsón et al., 2012). The main advantage of Web 2.0 use for the public sector lies in its capabilities for collaboration, participation, and empowerment of citizens to take part in governance (Bertot et al., 2010a). Such tools offer governments significant means by which to engage communities and make services more efficient (Jayakanthan, 2011). They also allow for and encourage governments to value civil society as a legitimate partner for change (Williamson, 2011). Public organisations refer to the use of Web 2.0 technologies as Government 2.0 (Gov 2.0 hereafter) (Anttiroiko, 2010; Williams, 2010). The United Nations (2003) stressed that regardless of the motivation behind e-government adoption or how it is defined, the eventual objective of e-government is to create public value for citizens. This new era of government Gov 2.0 is associated with the values of openness, transparency and collaboration, along with the concept that the voices of many are smarter than the voice of one (Sadeghi et al., 2012). Moreover, online interaction using Web 2.0 platforms fosters the creation of public value through public services and legislation (Misuraca, 2012). In its recent 2014 report the UN identified that creating public value is becoming the primary goal of e-government using Web 2.0 technologies (United Nations, 2014). However, the empirical research on governments public value creation is immature (Meynhardt & Bartholomes, 2011). The developmental level of e-government in Australia was the main motivator to conduct this research study within the Australian context. The UN survey e-government 2012 report E-Government for the People shows that Australia continued to be a leader in the Oceania region and is considered one of the global leaders in e-government development, ranked 12th in the E-Government Development Index. Australia is leading those countries that concentrate on multichannel service delivery including 1

18 Bahrain, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Qatar, the Republic of Korea, etc. (United Nations, 2012). The recent UN e-government survey report E-Government for the Future We Want shows that Australia has moved from 12th ranking to second position in the global E-Government Development Index (United Nations, 2014). Thus, Australia is considered to be a good environment to conduct such research. Local governments are the closest tier of government to citizens, and thereby constitute the level of government that directly interacts and serves citizens. Local governments need to be in the same space as citizens in order to inform, serve, and interact with them (Scott, 2006). The use of social media platforms by 62% of Australian citizens (Sensis, 2011) puts pressure on Australian local governments to be on these platforms as well. Approximately half of Australians (47%) are using social media platforms to communicate and interact with different government tiers (AGIMO, 2012). Furthermore, the Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO) reports a significant increase in Australians use of government online services (AGIMO, 2012). Howard (2011) argues that governments should have already moved past the honeymoon phase with social networking platforms, and should now be asked to deliver and create value using social media. Local governments need to develop measures of the outcomes from citizen engagement approaches (Svara & Denhardt, 2010). While the overall tendency of Web 2.0 and its social networks in Australia and worldwide have increased, little is known about the value of these new technology platforms at local government level. The increased implementation and use of Gov 2.0 initiatives require that government administrators gain external and objective feedback on their e-government efforts (Huang, 2007). External feedback can help them have a better understanding of the benefits and return on their investments. Wimmer et al. (2008), for example, argue that a clear understanding of the value of e-government, and value for whom, is needed (p. 6). In the age of social media, Wigand (2012, p. 13) calls for further research to identify the metrics [that] can be used to assess the effectiveness of social media. One method of evaluation that takes the citizens perspective and enables a holistic assessment is that of public value. 2

19 The Public Value concept was first articulated by Mark Moore from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government as a new way of thinking about public management that could assist public managers. Moore (1995) describes public value as the value that the government generates for its people. Moore suggests that public managers should focus on creating public value. Moore argues that public managers should satisfy individual and collective desires instead of basing their work on traditional New Public Management (NPM) strategy, considered best practice in the 1980s and 1990s. Furthermore, Moore (1995) questions NPM s quantitative measures, arguing they often fail to address the fundamental, intangible issues of public service quality. The concept of Public Value is gaining considerable attention from many academics and experts (O Flynn, 2007; Raus et al., 2010). Moore s public value management model demonstrates a new way of thinking which moves away from NPM era approaches that focused on quantitative, measurable outputs (Hefetz & Warner, 2004). A considerable number of tools have been developed to help the public sector evaluate their efforts in implementing e-government initiatives using the public value approach. For example, the AGIMO (2004) developed a method for Australian public sector agencies to assess the demand for and value of e-government initiatives. Kearns (2004) provided a set of key criteria arguing that the success of e-government initiatives from a public value perspective should be evaluated based on the proposed set of key criteria. The European Commission (2006) proposed a measurement framework constructed upon the three value drivers of efficiency, democracy, and effectiveness and detailed multidimensional evaluation tools of e-government public value. Grimsley and Meehan (2007) developed a framework for evaluation of e-government projects based upon Moor s concept of Public Value. Karunasena and Deng (2009, 2010, 2011) proposed, developed, and revised a framework for evaluating the public value of e-government in Sri Lanka from the citizens perspective. These studies have provided very important measures and tools in evaluating the public value of e-government. However, none of these tools have been developed to evaluate the public value of Gov 2.0 whereby social media tools are implemented and used by government to interact and serve their constituents. Furthermore, they are not assessing public value at the local government level. 3

20 In this context, this study aims to investigate the public value of Gov 2.0 in Victorian local government in Australia. The contribution of this research is clarifying the public value of Gov 2.0 through a) identifying critical public values, b) developing a framework for evaluation, c) understanding government aims toward public value creation, d) understanding how residents perceive the public value gained from their use of Gov 2.0 services, and e) providing local government with recommendations for increasing the value of Gov 2.0 initiatives. Research questions have been formulated to address the research aim. In order to answer the research questions, a theoretical framework has been developed by hypothesising critical public values for evaluating the literature on public value of Gov 2.0. Three phases of research have been conducted using a sequential multiphase mixed methods approach. The first phase qualitatively investigated local government aims toward public value creation. The second phase used Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) to test and validate the theoretical framework using survey data collected from four Victorian local governments. To fully understand the public value of Gov 2.0, the findings of the quantitative phase are further explored using thematic analysis on the interview data collected from the citizens who use Gov 2.0 services (Phase 3). The findings of the three phases were triangulated to further validate the research findings and gain in-depth understanding of the public value of Gov 2.0 in Victorian local government. The use of a multiphase mixed methods approach in this study allows for the results from one method to help develop and inform another (Greene et al., 1989; Creswell, 2009). Thus the study can gain richer and more reliable research results by using this approach (Mingers, 2001; Creswell, 2009). The remainder of this chapter is structured as follows: the next section (1.2) presents the research aims, questions, and objectives. The subsequent section (1.3), describes the research methodology used to answer the research questions. The contribution to both theory and practice is then presented (1.4). The final section (1.5) outlines the structure of the thesis. 4

21 1.2 RESEARCH AIMS, QUESTIONS, AND OBJECTIVES Research aims and questions The aim of this research is to investigate and assess the public value of Gov 2.0 initiatives in the Victorian local government context. To fulfil the research aim, the key Research Question (RQ) has been formulated: RQ: How do Gov 2.0 initiatives contribute towards public value creation? To facilitate answering the main research question comprehensively, sub-research questions have been formulated as follows: a) What aims do government officials have in implementing Gov 2.0 initiatives to create public value? b) What public values do citizens perceive from using Gov 2.0 initiatives? c) How do citizens perceive public values from their use of Gov 2.0 initiatives? Research objectives The conception of Public Value is very important for public sector administration (Jørgensen & Bozeman, 2007). Enhancing public trust in government, improving public services, and achieving social outcomes have been identified as potential and significant areas to create public value that can be truly perceived by citizens (Kelly et al., 2002; Kearns, 2004). Gov 2.0 initiatives have been considered a good means to enhance public trust in government (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009; Bertot et al., 2010b; Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012), improve public services (Misuraca, 2012), and achieve outcomes (Fyfe & Crookall, 2012). Consequently, it is important to incorporate Gov 2.0 initiatives in a detailed examination of how these initiatives contribute towards public value creation in Victoria. Both the use of public value as an assessment tool for evaluating government performance and the use of Gov 2.0 initiatives in the public sector are relatively new. For these reasons, it can be suggested that clarifying the relationships involving Gov 2.0 and public value creation is necessary. Web 2.0 offers an innovative and sophisticated means for government-citizen communication and interaction, as reflected by the growth and development of a new stream of Web 2.0 and social media research. Likewise, information systems researchers are challenged to research the effects of 5

22 using Web-based technologies for citizens. However, despite the fact that understanding within this area has grown, the theoretical platform relating to the assessment of Gov 2.0 initiatives from the public value point of view has not received much attention. Hence, additional scientific research is needed to fill the research gaps associated with public value, particularly for Gov 2.0. Thus, the research objectives to achieve the research aim stated above are to: a) Identify the critical values for evaluating the public value of Gov 2.0 at local government level b) Develop a theoretical framework for evaluating the public value of Gov 2.0 initiatives based on the literature, government and citizens perspectives c) Provide policy recommendations particularly those to Victorian local government. As a result, this thesis will contribute to Gov 2.0 by proposing a method that can be used to examine the perceptions of public value. Essentially assessment tools are vital for researchers to examine the relationships between government initiatives and citizen's perceptions of value or even the impact of Gov 2.0 on society as a whole. 1.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Leedy and Ormrod (2005, p. 4) defined research as the systematic process of collecting and analysing information (data) in order to increase our understanding of the phenomenon about which we are concerned or interested. The ultimate aim of research is to advance knowledge in a chosen subject area (Remenyi & Williams, 1996). Thus in order to develop coherent research within the exploratory nature of this study, this research uses a multiphase mixed methods approach utilising the exploratory sequential strategy. Mixed methods research is characterised as a study that comprises components of both qualitative and quantitative approaches (Reichardt & Cook, 1979; Miles & Huberman, 1984; Howe, 1988; Brewer & Hunter, 1989; Creswell, 2009). The mixed methods approach allows results from one method to help develop or inform another (Greene et al., 1989; Creswell, 2009). The study can gain richer and more reliable research results by using this approach (Mingers, 2001; Creswell, 2009). 6

23 To gain in-depth understanding on how Gov 2.0 initiatives contribute towards public value creation from a citizen s perspective, this study is conducted in a multiphase sequential exploratory design suggested by Creswell (2009) in the following manner: a) Initially, the researcher evaluated the maturity of all Victorian local government websites to understand each council s maturity and implementation level of Gov 2.0 initiatives to select the most appropriate local governments for data collection. b) The first phase uses semi-structured interviews with four selected local governments. Elected officials and administrators were interviewed to understand government aims toward public value creation. c) The second phase uses survey questionnaires with end users (citizens) to identify public values perceived by citizens from their use of Gov 2.0 initiatives, and to understand the relationship between these values and the main components of public value creation (trust, service quality, and social outcomes). d) The third phase uses semi-structured interviews with citizens. The purpose of the interviews is to gain an in-depth understanding of their experience and the value they perceived from using Gov 2.0 services. The sequential exploratory strategy adopted in this research was appropriate, as both areas (public value and Gov 2.0) are relatively new, and the data that could emerge from the initial stages could not be predicted. The sequential exploratory design helped to use the results gained from each phase to inform the next phase, and also helped the researcher to handle some unexpected results as they emerged. 7

24 1.4 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE STUDY This study contributed to the fields of Information Systems (IS) and public administration research from both theoretical and practical perspectives as follows. A) Theory o o o o This study validates the use of the concept of Public Value to assess the contribution of Gov 2.0 initiatives towards public value creation by developing an investigative framework. The developed framework addresses the main shortcomings of previous frameworks, as none of them were developed to evaluate the public value of Gov 2.0, and the interpretation of public values used may not reflect the Gov 2.0 environment. This study contributes to IS research by developing an investigative framework for assessing the public value of Gov 2.0 initiatives. The framework is developed using the areas of public value as outlined by Moore (1995), Kelly et al. (2002), Kearns (2004), and the public values inventory by Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007). The study has identified the ways that Victorian citizens perceive each of the public values approved in this study. These identified ways established a base of values that can be used as indicators to evaluate citizens' perceptions of public values through Gov 2.0 initiatives. A further contribution is the developed framework, a first in evaluating the public value of Gov 2.0 from the citizen s perspective at local government level. The framework can be useful for assessing the public value of Gov 2.0 initiatives in all local governments and agencies around Australia, and other developed countries where the same Gov 2.0 initiatives are implemented. B) Practice Although this study was carried out in Victorian local government, the findings are not restricted to Victoria alone. The study assessment will enable local governments to discover what they have achieved from their implementation and use of new technologies. 8

25 This study s revised framework has identified the public values and associated indicators associated. This will provide Victorian local government with a public value compass that can be utilised for decision making and to focus council efforts to achieve these values. The study identifies the ways that Victorian citizens perceive each of the public values approved. Such a level of detail can significantly facilitate the way staff and elected officials of Victorian local government interact and serve their citizens on Gov 2.0 platforms. The study determined dominant values that local governments can target in order to facilitate creating other values. The study captures the way citizens perceive the value from their interactions with their local government on Gov 2.0 platforms. These findings provide local government with a clearer picture of what their citizens think about many aspects involved in the interactions taking place on these platforms. Understanding how citizens think and behave helps governments steer interactions more effectively to create public value among citizens. The study provides Victorian local government with a tool to evaluate the government efficacy using the framework indicators to assess the citizens perspective. These research results also could be very helpful for Victorian local government to justify investments in Gov 2.0 initiatives to higher levels of government (i.e. state or federal governments). These findings would also help Victorian local government to attract more support for future Gov 2.0 implementation or for recruiting more staff to manage and implement more platforms. To sum up, the study findings assist Victorian local government to develop Gov 2.0 strategies by: o o o o setting the aims for implementing Gov 2.0 initiatives; identifying the objectives of implementing Gov 2.0 initiatives; clarifying how to achieve these objectives and aims; identifying local government officials who need to be involved and how; 9

26 o o evaluating the impact of local government Gov 2.0 initiatives; and justifying the resources needed to support Gov 2.0 initiatives with constrained budgets. 10

27 1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS This thesis contains nine chapters (see figure 1.1) following the writing structure suggested by (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011) for mixed methods research. Figure 1.1: Structure of the thesis 11

28 Chapter One is the introductory chapter of the thesis introducing the background to the study, research aims and questions, research methodology, contributions to the study, definition of key terms, relevant publications, and structure of the thesis. Chapter Two examines the literature on the emergence of Gov 2.0 with a focus on social aspects of these new technologies. The chapter explores the concept of Public Value and how Gov 2.0 can contribute to its creation. This chapter also discusses existing frameworks developed for assessing public value of e-government, their strengths and limitations, and the need for developing a new theoretical framework for assessing the public value of Gov 2.0 initiatives in Victoria, Australia. Chapter Three develops and presents a theoretical framework for assessing the public value of Gov 2.0 in Victoria, as well as the study hypotheses. Chapter Four focuses on the methodology employed for this study. It begins with illustrating the context of the research, followed by discussion of the research philosophical perspectives employed, with an emphasis on the sequential multiphase mixed methods approach underpinning this research. Details are then provided on the research design and procedures including a description of the mixed methods strategy implemented in this study. The chapter also presents the sampling selection process, research reliability, validity, and ethical considerations. Chapter Five describes the analysis of first phase interviews with government elected officials and administrators, including a description of the data collection and analysis procedures. This is followed by a detailed discussion of findings from in-depth interviews on government aims toward public value creation and values targeted by Victorian local government activity. Chapter Six presents the second phase survey with end users (citizens) data analysis. Survey development and data collection procedures are described including sampling selection, sample size, and respondents profiles. The chapter discusses the procedures undertaken to prepare the data for structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis, and it begins by describing how the data was screened, assessed for normality, and the reliability of the questionnaire to perform confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Chapter Seven describes the analysis of third phase interviews with citizens, including a description of the data collection and analysis procedures, followed by a detailed discussion of findings from in-depth interviews. The focus of this chapter is on how 12

29 citizens perceive public values related to the main public value areas (public trust in government, quality of public services delivered, and social outcomes). Chapter Eight integrates results from the three phases of the study, and presents a comprehensive discussion of the role of Gov 2.0 in public value creation. The chapter revises the initial framework for evaluating the public value of Gov 2.0 in Victoria. The chapter concludes with a number of specific recommendations to Victorian local government on how to maximise public value creation through the implementation and use of Gov 2.0 initiatives. Chapter Nine concludes the thesis, reflects on the research questions and the creation of public value in the Gov 2.0 environment at local Victorian government level. Research contributions for both theory and practice are also addressed. The chapter concludes with a reflection on the research strengths and limitations, addressing research objectives, directions for future research, and final concluding remarks. 13

30 Chapter 2: Literature Review 2.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the background against which this research project is set. The evolution process of e-government is discussed first, in order to clarify the emergence of Government 2.0 (Gov 2.0). This section begins with a review of the concept of e-government as an evolutionary process, and how e-government can be perceived and approached. The development of Web 2.0 technologies and their increased use by governments are highlighted along with the social aspect of these new technologies are discussed in the next section (2.2). The following section (2.3) reviews the concept of Public Value and how it can be created and developed. The next section (2.4) identifies the potential ways that the use of Gov 2.0 initiatives can contribute to public values creation. These potential values will be reviewed and discussed under the three main areas of public value creation identified by Kelly et al. (2002): public trust in government, quality public services, and social outcomes. The next section (2.5) discusses how public value approaches have become a new tool to evaluate the level of public sector e-services. A number of frameworks developed to evaluate the public value of e-government (e.g. AGIMO 2004; Kearns 2004; European Commission 2006; Grimsley & Meehan 2007; Karunasena & Deng 2011) will be extensively reviewed. This section also identifies key limitations of these frameworks that make them insufficient to evaluate the public value of Gov 2.0 where social media tools are employed in government service delivery activity and interaction with citizens (Omar et al., 2013). This is followed by the chapter summary. 2.2 THE EVOLUTION PROCESS OF E-GOVERNMENT Definitions of e-government The term e-government was introduced by a joint report Access America: Reengineering through Information Technology of the National Performance Review and the Government Information Technology Services Board in 1997 (Relyea, 2002). Brown and Brudney (2001, p. 1) define e-government as the use of technology, 14

31 especially Web-based applications to enhance access to and efficiently deliver government information and services. In the early years of electronic government the emphasis was on the use of information and communication technologies and particularly the Internet, as a tool to achieve better government (OECD, 2003, p. 1). Governments adopted e-government to enhance their service provision and boost the efficiency of public management as a support for many functions and services such as: information and service delivery (Bekkers & Zouridis, 1999), efficiency and effectiveness (Heeks, 2001), interactivity (DiCaterino & Pardo, 1996; Wong & Welch, 2004), decentralisation, transparency (La Porte et al., 2002; Wong & Welch, 2004), and accountability (Ghere & Young, 1998; Heeks, 1998; McGregor, 2001). Yildiz (2007) suggests that it is possible to approach e-government in different ways based on one's focus. The concept of e-government can be perceived and approached from any of its components including e-administration, e-citizens, e-services, and e- societies (Heeks, 1999, 2001, 2002; Prattipati, 2003; Heeks, 2006a; Jones et al., 2007). The components of e-government are outlined in figure 2.1. E-administration deals mainly with improving work within the public sector including: a) cutting financial costs and/or time costs, b) planning, monitoring and controlling the performance of process resources, c) connecting government arms, agencies, levels and data stores, and d) transferring power, authority and resources for processes from their existing locations to new locations (Heeks, 2002). An e-citizen s approach to e-government is about how government connects and interacts with citizens by consulting with and engaging them for improving public services, listening to their opinions to support user s democracy, and government accountability (Heeks, 1999, 2006b; Jones et al., 2007). An e-services approach is when governments focus on improving the delivery and quality of public services to citizens by providing them with online services (Jones et al., 2007). An e-society perspective is generally about building relationships between public organisations and other organisations including public and private organisations, not-for-profit organisations, and community organisations (Heeks, 2002, 2006b; Jones et al., 2007). 15

32 Figure 2.1: Components of e-government (Heeks, 2006b) E-government can also be approached based on the interaction perspective. There are many types of e-government interactions; for instance, Brown and Brudney (2001) classified e-government into three wide classifications including Government-to- Government (G2G), Government-to-Citizen (G2C), and Government-to-Business (G2B). When interaction among citizens is related to one of the above three categories, two additional categories can be included: Government-to-Civil Societal Organisations (G2CS) and Citizen-to-Citizen (C2C) (Brown & Brudney, 2001) as detailed in table 2.1. This interaction classification is widely supported in the e-government literature (see for example Tan et al., 2005; Evans & Yen, 2006; Gupta et al., 2008; Wang & Liao, 2008). The Government-to-Government (G2G) category is an interaction within government agencies and levels or with other governments, mainly to increase the efficiency of transactions (Evans & Yen, 2006; Ray et al., 2011). Government-to-Citizen (G2C) interaction is the service delivery activity by the government, concentrating on the ability of both government and citizens to communicate with each other online (Evans & Yen, 2006). 16

33 Table 2.1: Subcategories of e-government (Yildiz, 2007) The Government-to-Business (G2B) classification focuses on conducting business in a more cost-effective way and obtaining data to analyse and support decision making (Evans & Yen, 2006; Esteves & Joseph, 2008). The Government-to-Civil Societal (G2CS) focuses on developing civil society and improve the quality of citizens lives through enabling the development of a knowledge-based society (Heeks, 2006a; Yildiz, 2007; Esteves & Joseph, 2008). The Citizen-to-Citizen (C2C) category concerns the interaction between citizens using technology. Beynon-Davies et al. (2004) argue that C2C will be a fundamental part of future governance, especially the links with other areas of government functions such as accountability and the policy making process E-government evolution Characteristically, there are many types of activities that can take place within each of the interactive areas described above. Generally, scholars have characterised e- government development as an evolutionary process (Layne & Lee, 2001; Moon, 2002; Gupta & Jana, 2003; Akman et al., 2005; Affisco & Soliman, 2006; Gil-Garcia & 17

34 Pardo, 2006; Esteves & Joseph, 2008). This evolutionary development encompasses a number of stages (as shown in figure 2.2) that includes the following: a) Initial presence stage exists with the employment of the internet by the government to publish information through few individual pages (Layne & Lee, 2001; Reddick, 2004; Gil-Garcia & Pardo, 2006; Beynon-Davies, 2007). b) Extended presence in this stage government has many websites to deliver more dynamic, focused information that is regularly updated (Gil-Garcia & Pardo, 2006). c) Interactive presence in this stage government increases the interaction between citizens and businesses and diverse public organisations by implementing a statewide or national portal as the primary page to access services (e.g. s, forums, etc.) in several public organisations (Hiller & Belanger, 2001; United Nations & American Society for Public Administration, 2002). Figure 2.2: Evolutionary model for e-government (Layne and Lee (2001) d) Transactional presence in this stage the state wide or national portals can be personalised by users. Users needs are the essential criteria for portal design and access (United Nations & American Society for Public Administration, 2002) enabling secure transactions and payments (e.g. tax, fines, and services payments) (Layne & Lee, 2001). 18

35 e) Vertical integration in this stage services provided by diverse levels of government are combined (Layne & Lee, 2001) virtually, physically, or both (Gil-Garcia & Pardo, 2006). f) Horizontal integration horizontal integration stage takes place between diverse government sectors at the same government level (local, state, or national) but offer different services to provide citizens with one-stop service (Layne & Lee, 2001; Reddick, 2004). g) Totally integrated presence this stage refers to a situation where services are completely integrated (vertically and horizontally) (Hiller & Belanger, 2001; United Nations & American Society for Public Administration, 2002). Governments carry out institutional and administrative reforms that enable the potential of ICTs (Grönlund, 2001) where citizens can access all government services from one web page using a unique ID and password (Gil-Garcia & Pardo, 2006). Following the growth of the Internet in the 1990s, recent types of online communities, social networking and user content sharing began to affect the utilisation of the Internet in the 2000s. These types of innovative communication are referred to as Web 2.0, a notion which was introduced by professionals who aspired to help redesign innovative developments of the World Wide Web (Breindl & Francq, 2008). Most literature dates the term Web 2.0 to 2005 and Tim O Reilly (Sanders, 2008). Till the mid-2000s Internet users were considered to be rather passive (the read-only Web, also known as Web 1.0) when Web 2.0 emerged and highlighted the interactivity of the Internet, which is all about user networks, user-generated content, and related hosted services (Anderson, 2012). O'Reilly (2005) defined Web 2.0 as: The network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an "architecture of participation," and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences. 19

36 Web 2.0 is affiliated with content sharing, supporting many forms but particularly sharing written content, such as diaries, opinions, stories etc. or media content, such as photos, music, videos, games or webcam, or a combination of such content. Technologically, these functions and characteristics of the social networks phenomenon are referred to as Web 2.0 technologies, social computing or social media (Anttiroiko, 2010). The term social networking has recently been adopted and has replaced the older generation of online community clusters such as online community, virtual community or a few comparable concepts that belong to the earlier type of social networking (Anttiroiko, 2010). Social Network Sites (SNS) mainly supported by Web based network services, provide particular social network users with many different ways to develop their profile pages, and get connected to other users (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). SNS also enables focused interactions with people and groups rather than broadcast information, (which mainly featured Web 1.0) resulting in building relationships between users. Users are able to share media (photos, videos, etc.) post feedback and reviews about products or services, engage in dialogue with others, and tagging (Dalsgaard & Sorenson, 2008). The combined term is user-generated content (UGC) (Anderson, 2012). UGC allow users not only to consume content materials, but to share peer-to-peer files, as well as create content. Users share (online) messages, locations, social bookmarks, content, images, videos, as well as (online) friends. These types of actions, together with high speed Internet networks, offer several opportunities to design new and modern services. Anttiroiko (2009) classified Web 2.0 applications based on their social aspect and features as shown in table

37 Table 2.2: Classifications of Web 2.0 applications (adapted from Anttiroiko, 2009) Recently, with the development of Web 2.0 technologies and its increased use by government, both government and researchers have realised that e-government is about more than improving government efficiency. E-government can improve the relationship between government and its citizens and strengthen civil society as a whole. Thus, e-government has been redefined as the use by government agencies of information technologies that have the ability to transform relations with citizens, 21

38 businesses, and other arms of government (World Bank, 2005, ph. 2) and the focus of government has shifted from the use of ICTs as service provision tools to increasing the value of services and achieving better government (United Nations, 2008). This shift has been motivated by many factors. For instance, the way people communicate has been redefined by Web 2.0 applications, which transform the Web into a participation and co-production platform. Yet, regardless of the motivation behind e-government adoption or how it is defined, the eventual objective of e-government is to create public value for citizens (United Nations, 2003) E-government and Web 2.0 The diversity of platforms and applications of ICTs allow governments to deliver and manage a variety of different services (United Nations, 2005). The use of Web 2.0 technologies by the public sector, for example, can bring both governments and citizens various benefits including enhancing the efficiency and responsiveness at all government levels and in departments (Landsbergen Jr & Wolken Jr, 2001; Edmiston, 2003; Gauld et al., 2009); improving the quality of government service delivery (Irani et al., 2005; Shim & Eom, 2008); increasing citizens participation in the political process (Heeks, 2001; Tung & Rieck, 2005; Sharifi & Manian, 2010); strengthening the openness of government functions by raising citizens awareness of public sector decision making (West, 2004; Bertot et al., 2010b); and enhancing citizens knowledge, learning, and knowledge sharing (Evans & Yen, 2006; Gupta et al., 2008). The significance of the implementation of Web 2.0 technologies has been recognised by many governments around the globe (Shackleton et al., 2006). However, the huge potential of Web 2.0 technologies motivated many governments to identify the use of such technologies and platforms, especially the use of social media tools as a high priority area in modern public management policy (Dunleavy et al., 2008). Web 2.0 has changed the means by which people communicate with each other by allowing two-way interactions amongst people and between individuals and organisations. Additionally, the use of Web 2.0 technologies can overcome geographical and time issues. The unique role of users, user-generated content, and user networks are among the important attributes of Web 2.0 where the user becomes an active participant rather than being simply a consumer and become the creator of content (Allen, 2008; Bruns, 2008). 22

39 Anttiroiko (2010, p. 19) refers to Web 2.0 as the second generation of Web-based communities, networks and hosted services, which facilitates interaction between users. As such Web 2.0 does not refer to technology but rather it refers to the societal side of the phenomena. Anttiroiko s (2010) conception of Web 2.0 draws on the collaborative practices and visions of the Internet, highlighting its social aspect which draws governments to this technology. Because of its wider range of impact (technologically, socially, etc.), Web 2.0 has been defined in many different ways (Alam & Lucas, 2011). Based on the different operational definitions of Web 2.0, Alam and Lucas (2011) identified two groups of values associated with Web 2.0 use in the public sector from a communication perspective including Gov 2.0 values and social values (as illustrated in figure 2.3). Figure 2.3: Different operational definition of Web 2.0 (adapted from Alam & Lucas, 2011) Generally, the social effects of Web 2.0 tend to be viewed as a key contribution. Scholars and government officials consider Web 2.0 as an essential democratising tool to enhance government effectiveness and efficiency, and also as an important factor in 23

40 governmental success (Ostergaard & Hvass, 2008). Web 2.0 has been seen as a shifting paradigm because it is much more than merely improvements across quantities of information and services. Web 2.0 is actually an essential improvement in the approach people take to doing things and communicating with each other and their organisations, particularly governing bodies (O'Reilly, 2005; Baumgarten & Chui, 2009). Many scholars have asserted that Web 2.0 technologies are going to result in open government and so endorse citizen participation and collaboration (Holzer et al., 2004; Chun et al., 2010; Scavo & Kim, 2010; Piaggesi et al., 2011). The revolution of Web 2.0 applications during placed pressure on the public sector to make use of the knowledge of online crowds in the public service and governance functions, which happen to be anticipated to enhance public sector responsiveness (Anttiroiko, 2009). Therefore, Frissen (2005) stressed that one of the vital features of this Internet era is the empowerment of users. Online communities, social networking and user-generated content production are bringing new elements to the development of electronic government. These new features are based on a new logic of the Web, referred to as Web 2.0. When applied to the public sphere, this idea has been labeled as Government 2.0. This is a new trend that challenges governments to assess their role in society and especially their relationship with citizens (Anttiroiko, 2010, P. 18). The following section will expand on the concept of Government Government 2.0 Public organisations refer to the use of Web 2.0 technologies as Government 2.0 (Gov 2.0) (Anttiroiko, 2010; Williams, 2010). For example, in the United States, the term Government 2.0 has become commonly used with President Obama s administration s Open Government Directive to transform government interaction using Web 2.0 technologies. In Australia, the Australian Government 2.0 Taskforce report defined Government 2.0 as the use of the new collaborative tools and approaches of Web 2.0 (Gruen, 2009, p. x). The development of Government 2.0 in the public sector is about the level of complexity of Web 2.0 technologies. This development follows typical e-government maturity models that illustrate development, beginning at a basic presence online 24

41 through interactive and transactional stages to the entire transformation of government (e.g., Al-Sebie et al., 2005; Siau & Long, 2005), where government becomes citizencentred e-government (Anttiroiko, 2010). However, Anttiroiko stated that Government 2.0 development may not be consistent and linear and the progression of the main functions of government (political, administrative, service and development) probably will develop asynchronously. The author illustrates the influence on the developmental stages of e-government applied to Web 2.0 applications as follows (see figure 2.4 below). Figure 2.4: Evolution of the utilisation of Web 2.0 in government (Anttiroiko, 2010) Citizen generated content over social networks can add value through communication, content sharing, social networking and collective intelligence (Anttiroiko, 2010). Typically, citizen collaboration and widespread intelligence are significant drivers for the cohesive value of Government 2.0, based on collective problem solving. Government 2.0 is founded on the concept of providing citizens with an innovative role in public service and governance activities through the use of their social networking and content sharing activities (Osimo, 2008). Social media tools provide governments with a very powerful and entirely new communication approach to change the way they communicate and stay relevant to their citizens (Department of Innovation, 2009). Social media tools arise from the development of Web 2.0 technology applications (Bonsón et al., 2012). The meaning of social media is closely aligned with the concept of Web 2.0 (Ayanso & Moyers, 2012). Web 2.0 and its social media tools are mainly about the wisdom of crowds, where 25

42 online information is connected and communication spread to reach citizens collaboratively (Godwin, 2009). Social media tools, such as RSS feeds, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, can be used by governments to inform citizens with the most recent information about what is happening in their neighbourhood or about the government itself. Likewise, citizens can express and share their experiences with public services with their government, which can help to enhance public services (Misuraca, 2012). Furthermore, through these tools citizens can also participate in the public policies development process by providing their opinions, making assessments, or drafting input or creating media content, and consequently enhancing public governance outcomes (Anttiroiko, 2010). The increased use of social media by the general population was one of the main drivers behind the government use of social media tools (Obama, 2009). Social media is a two- way communication tool built to be used for listening, engaging in dialogue, building trust, expanding reach, gauging sentiment, reciprocity and responsiveness (Wigand, 2012). Therefore, there are significant differences between the government use of Web 1.0 (e-government) and the use of Web 2.0 technologies (Gov 2.0) such as social media (Mergel, 2012). Table 2.3 summarises the differences between e-government and Gov 2.0 when government uses social media tools to interact and serve their citizens. Table 2.3: Differences between e-government and social media use in the public sector (Mergel, 2012) Bertot et al. (2010b) argued that the main potential strengths of the use of social media tools in the public sector lie in their capability to be used as tools for collaboration, participation, empowerment, and time saving. The use of Web 2.0 technologies and social media tools offered government more possibilities to generate additional values by allowing citizens to interact with their government in usable and helpful means. Furthermore, it can help government to provide citizens with specific services and accomplish specific tasks in a short time frame at a low cost (Kloby, 2012). Through the 26

43 use of social media tools citizens can easily express their opinions and concerns, and also offer ideas to enhance government (Hau-Dong et al., 2010). Technological innovation is going to make governments more professional and even more democratic and therefore superior (Noveck, 2009). Ayanso and Moyers (2012) concluded that best practices and opportunities of the use of social media in the public sector were in the areas of crowdsourcing, open data, law enforcement, disaster planning, and analytics and intelligence. This section (2.2) and its subsections discussed the evolution process of e-government and the potential opportunities and values that can be harnessed. However, the level and type of benefits that can be gained from these technologies depend on the level and way they are implemented and used by a particular government. So far, only the technological side of government has been discussed, how the implementation of Web technologies by government is promising, and enhancing the creation of the public value in an innovative way. In the next section, the discussion will shift to public administration, presenting the idea of public value, how it could be created, and how it can be used to evaluate the performance of government. 2.3 PUBLIC VALUE The concept of Public Value is significant for public sector administrators as stressed by Jørgensen and Bozeman, because there is no more important topic in public administration and policy than public values (2007, p. 355). As mentioned earlier, public value was first articulated by Mark Moore from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government as a new way of thinking about public management that might help public managers. Moore (1995) describes public value as the value that government generates for its people. He suggests that public managers should focus on creating public value by satisfying individual and collective desires instead of basing their work on traditional New Public Management (NPM) strategy, which was seen as best practice in the 1980s and 1990s. Furthermore, Moore (1995) questions NPM quantitative measures, arguing they often fail to address the fundamental, intangible issues of public service quality. All around the world, reform of the public sector is a common experience (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004). The public sector was reformed from traditional public administration to NPM and more recently towards public value management (Moore, 1995; Stoker, 27

44 2006; O Flynn, 2007). In the 1980s countries such as the UK, US, Australia, New Zealand and many other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries adopted the strategy of NPM to modernise and reform the public sector (Hood, 1991). NPM always stressed cost-efficiency over any other criteria arising from the tendency to focus on those things that can be evaluated easily and turned into objectives, whilst those that are difficult to evaluate are not used (Moore, 1995). A common problem of NPM is that it evaluates public service efficiency based on the average cost of processing a given output, rather than examining potential outcomes valued by citizens (Raus et al., 2010). For example, Raus et al. (2010, p. 124) stress that measuring how cost-effective a government website provides quantity of information rather than the usefulness and relevance of the information to the citizen. This example indicates that in this narrow sense, efficiency improvements do not contribute to the enhancement of public value. In view of the fact that NPM strategy focuses more on output rather than outcome, public managers often cannot see the bigger picture beyond the service they provide, leading to weak coherence in the public services sector (Coats, 2006). As a consequence the idea of Public Value has been developed to give a clearer view of government performance and to overcome the disadvantages of NPM. Table 2.4 contrasts the main attributes of traditional public administration and new public management toward the public value management paradigm. 28

45 Table 2.4: Paradigms of public sector management (Kelly, et al. 2002) Moore (1995) identified that public organisation strategy should be about three main concepts (see figure 2.5): (1) creating public value, (2) being legitimately and politically sustainable, and (3) being operationally and administratively feasible. Creating public value is about the value that public organisations want to create for their citizens (e.g. organisation aims and objectives). Legitimacy and political sustainability is the foundation of authority and sustainable resources that public organisations depend on to offer services. Operational and administrative feasibility refers to the operational capacity of the public organisation including their employees (e.g. financial and technological resources). Moore (1995) illustrates public value strategy in the strategic triangle (see figure 2.5), and stresses that creating public value should be central to the activities of public managers. As Moore explains, private companies create value by 29

46 offering consumer products and services and creating economic value for stakeholders. For public organisations, their clients are the citizens who profit from their services and their goal is to create public value for them, and their stakeholders are the politicians/legislators who offer resources and empower them to manage. Figure 2.5: Strategic triangle (Moore, 1995) and public value main sources (Kelly, 2002) The concept of Public Value is gaining considerable attention from many academics and experts (O Flynn, 2007; Raus et al., 2010), and it has spread outside the academy to practitioners and think tanks (Alford & O'Flynn, 2009, p. 179). Moore s public value management model demonstrates a new way of thinking which moves away from NPM approaches that focused on quantitative measurable outputs (Hefetz & Warner, 2004). However, there is varying stances toward the idea of public value. While a large proportion of public managers who have been introduced to this new management approach have embraced it enthusiastically (Alford & O'Flynn, 2009), academics have been divided into two groups. Some who pursue it (e.g., Silverman, 2001; Alesina & Angeletos, 2003; Talbot, 2006; Alford & O'Flynn, 2009; Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012), and others oppose it (e.g., Stanley, 2003; Rhodes & Wanna, 2007). Those who criticized the idea of Public Value asserted that it is a normative and pragmatic theory (Alford & O'Flynn, 2009). The concept of Public Value is criticized for being too abstract and it cannot be operationalized due to its lack of concrete guidance (Stoker, 2006). Rhodes and Wanna (2007) believe that Moore has over emphasizing the role of public managers, and over trusting the public organizations and private sector experience and understated the significance of politics and elected officials. They claimed that his approach is not clear, questioning whether it is a paradigm, a concept, a model, a heuristic device, or even a story (2004. p, 408). The 30

47 concept of Public Value was also sharply criticized by Stanley (2003) arguing that public value introduced by Moore is an equivalent to shareholder value. Academics who support the idea of the public value believe it is a valid theory though it is confusing and substantial work needs to be conducted (Silverman, 2001; Alesina & Angeletos, 2003). Silverman (2001) defended Moore s public value idea providing refutations to all Rhodes and Wanna s criticisms (see also Alford & O'Flynn, 2009). Alford emphasizes on Moore s strategic triangle as a legitimate limit on the public manager s autonomy to shape what is meant by public value (Silverman, p, 177). Generally, the public value concept has been well received by numerous public sector commentators (Wilson & Howarth, p, 11). Kelly et al. (2002) highlighted the usefulness of the Public Value concept by Moore (1995) to advance public policies and the relationship between government and citizens. Besides its use for e-government evaluation, the concept of Public Value has been used in a number of public sector domains as a framework for change and improvement including areas such as criminal and justice (e.g., Rhodes & Wanna, 2007; United Nations, 2010), learning and skills (e.g., Grigg & Mager, 2005; Fauth, 2006; Fryer, 2011), higher education (e.g., Garnett & Ecclesfield, 2008) and health (e.g., Chapman, 2005; Mahdon, 2006; Williams et al., 2007; Constable et al., 2008). This wider range of use suggests potential for the Public Value concept as a framework for public sector improvement (such as Kelly et al., 2004; Smith, 2004; Blaug et al., 2006). Kelly et al. (2002) focus on the practical implications of public value strategy by identifying the sources of public value. They build on Moore s (1995) work, beginning with defining public value as the value created by government through services, laws, regulation and other actions (Kelly et al., 2002, p. 4). The authors argue that public organisations can generate value that will be genuinely valued by citizens in many ways, for instance, by improving the quality of public services. However, the authors identified three main sources of public value: outcome, trust (including legitimacy and confidence), and services (see figure 2.5). For Kelly et al. (2002) these three sources of public value creation provide government with the foundation for new ways of thinking about the value they create for their citizens. The value that is created through outcome is associated with the following: security, poverty reduction, reduced social exclusion, advancing levels of public health and 31

48 education, equity and reduced levels of homelessness. Trust, legitimacy and confidence in government are at the core of the relationship between citizens and government and are crucial for public value creation (Kelly et al., 2002). The value created by government through services is highly dependent on the level of service quality delivered by public administration. The quality of service provision is driven by a series of factors including service availability, satisfaction levels with services, importance of services offered, fairness of service provision, and cost (Kelly et al., 2002). The three main sources of public values creation identified by Kelly et al. (2002), (quality of public services delivery, achievement of social outcomes, and development of public trust in government) are very useful to investigate the public value of e- government. For example, Kearns (2004) was the first who used these sources to examine the public value of e-government. Kelly et al. s (2002) sources of public value have also been used by a significant number of scholars in e-government field by extending Kearns (2004) framework in different ways (including Golubeva, 2007; Grimsley & Meehan, 2007; Karunasena et al., 2011). Kelly et al. (2002) highlighted the usefulness of the Public Value concept to advance public policies and the relationship between government and citizens (Kelly et al., 2002). Gov 2.0 can enhance the relationship between citizens and government in policy-making processes that allow for additional participatory democracy (Nabatchi & Mergel, 2010). Therefore, the sources of public value creation identified by Kelly et al. (2002) are useful to investigate the Public Value of Gov 2.0. Public value attempts to capture the difference between outputs and outcomes (Walker, 2009) and exists at both individual and collective levels (Bozeman, 2007). There is no singular public value but rather multiple public values (Talbot, 2008). Public and governmental interaction continuously defines and redefines public value, thus public value is not fixed and it should be continually explored (Jantz, 2009) and multiple values addressed through either aggregation and/or choice (Talbot, 2008). For example, Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007) examined essential issues to public value: clarifying the origins of public values, illustrating the hierarchy of public values, investigating the public values evaluation, and demonstrating the relationships between public values. To identify public values Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007) offer an inventory of seven main value constellations with seventy-two categories of public values: the first constellation contains values associated with the public sector s contribution to society; 32

49 the second constellation covers values associated with transformation of interests to decisions; the third constellation encompasses values associated with the relationship between public administration and politicians; the fourth constellation comprises values associated with the relationship between public administration and its environment; the fifth constellation comprehends values associated with intra-organisational aspects of public administration; the sixth constellation includes values associated with the behaviour of public-sector employees; and the seventh constellation embraces values associated with the relationship between public administration and citizens. Table 2.5 shows the public value sets and categories by Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007). The main limitation of Jørgensen and Bozeman s (2007) inventory approach as the authors have advised is that values are quoted out of context (p. 357). However, they have provided a very helpful way showing how their clusters of values might be related, which can be used as a principle for future empirical analysis. Furthermore, Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007) suggested that values can be related in different ways including by proximity (how close a value is to another), hierarchy (a relative primacy of values), and causality (analysis of means to an end). Thus, Jørgensen and Bozeman s (2007) inventory approach can be used to evaluate the public value in different public administration areas. It is helpful to investigate and relate the authors inventory values to Gov 2.0 initiatives in this study. This leads us to the next section, and the ways in which Gov 2.0 can contribute to the creation of these public values. 33

50 Table 2.5: Category of public values (Jørgensen &Bozeman, 2007) 34

51 Table 2.5 (continued) 2.4 GOV 2.0 AND PUBLIC VALUE CREATION The close relationship between the concept of Public Value and the use of ICTs by the public sector was first highlighted by Kearns (2004) when he applied Kelly et al. (2002) work to evaluate e-government. The concept of Public Value can be used to understand the process of how value is created or co-created, and by whom and with whom it was created (Benington, 2009). In the public value paradigm where the Value is rooted in the desires and perceptions of individuals (Moore, 1995, p. 52), the main emphasis of public managers shifts from results to relationships (O Flynn, 2007). Gov 2.0 allows for, and optimistically encourages, governments to value civil society as a legitimate partner for change, and the effective use of social media tools is the real challenge for governments at this point (Williamson, 2011). These tools allow government agencies to invest in information technologies to transform and improve their relations with citizens (World Bank, 2005). This redefinition is supported with the change of government emphasis from the utilisation of information technologies as service provision towards improving the value of services provided and reaching greater government (United Nations, 2008). Recently public managers are not only asking whether their targets have been achieved, but whether society has gained any net benefits as a result of their activities (Stoker, 2006). Meynhardt and Bartholomes (2011) stated that the source of public value lies in the relationships, and its creation involves the shaping of experiences in relationships between individuals on the one hand and public entities and their services on the other 35

52 (p. 288). The authors also argued that the value will be at a high level when citizens perceive they have gained value from these interactions. Online interaction using Web 2.0 platforms fosters the creation of public value through public services and legislation (Misuraca, 2012). With the use of Web 2.0 technologies modern society can save time and overcome geographic limitations, and citizens are not passive recipients of services anymore because they become more active stakeholders. In other words, with Gov 2.0 platforms citizens can contribute to the public value created through these tools as concluded by Jørgensen and Bozeman who assert that public value is not governmental (2007, p. 372). Through the active engagement taking place on Gov 2.0 platforms between public officials and citizens, and between the citizens themselves government can refine and promote public value (Chang & Kannan, 2008; Baumgarten & Chui, 2009; Hui & Hayllar, 2010). The government use of Gov 2.0 initiatives to serve and interact with citizens brings participants together in a creative and deliberative process (Bonabeau, 2009; Kane & Fichman, 2009), and it have been labelled as the most powerful way for uniting citizens collective action and allowing them to evaluate and design services (Weinberger, 2002; Parameswaran & Whinston, 2007; Bonabeau, 2009; Kane & Fichman, 2009; Kim et al., 2009). This way of citizens use of Gov 2.0 initiatives will improve governance where it can be considered as a means to increase the public value produced by public administration (Savoldelli et al., p, 376). Thus, many studies encourage and advise governments to adopt and implement these new technologies to gain the potential advantages they offer. Waller (2010) suggested that Web 2.0 applications and social media tools needed to be utilised at the same time as existing government websites, but not replace them. Scholars have stressed that citizen interaction with government using Gov 2.0 initiatives have significant potential for public values creation. These potential advantages will be reviewed in relation to the main areas of public value creation, identified by Kelly et al. (2002) in the following sub-sections Gov 2.0 and public trust in government Various studies have suggested that public trust can be maintained and enhanced through increasing government responsiveness (Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006; Gauld et al., 2009), user democracy (Goldfinch, 2009), citizen involvement (Christensen, 2005), 36

53 self-development (Roberts, 2002), dialogue (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009), listening to public opinion (Yang, 2005), openness (Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006; Gauld et al., 2009), professionalism (Misuraca, 2012), honesty (Ulbig, 2004), integrity (Keele, 2007), and accountability (Bertot et al., 2010b). The primary goal of e-government is to encourage electronic democratic governance by making use of Web based applications and tools (West, 2008). Social media can play a transformative role in many areas linked to public trust in government, such as transparency, accountability, communication and collaboration, and to promote deeper levels of civic engagement (Mergel, 2012). The literature suggests that citizens use of Gov 2.0 initiatives can contribute to a number of values that directly link to citizens perceptions of trust in their government. Citizens use of these initiatives, mainly social media tools, can create and enhance citizens perceptions of value responsiveness (Coleman & Gotze, 2001; Welch et al., 2005; Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006; Bertot et al., 2010b), user democracy (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008), citizen involvement (Christensen & Lægreid, 2005; Nabatchi & Mergel, 2010), self-development (Roberts, 2002), dialogue (Chadwick, 2008; Grabner-Kräuter, 2009; Wigand, 2012), listening to public (Chadwick, 2008), openness (Mergel, 2012; Wigand, 2012), professionalism (Misuraca, 2012), honesty (Zambonini, 2006), integrity (Open Government Partnership, 2011), and accountability (Bertot et al., 2010b). Citizen participation is mainly about the involvement of citizens in government decision making at any level, whether willingly or compulsory which are performed to enhance engagement. Citizen involvement is a crucial aspect for democratic governance which results in knowledgeable administration decisions (Berman, 2005; Callahan, 2006), transparency and fairness in policy development (Lukensmeyer & Torres, 2006), capacity building (Cuthill & Fien, 2005) and increased trust in government (Keele, 2007). However, there are many reasons for low public attendance of government meetings and discussions, such as work schedules, lack of interest, child-care needs, or fear of public speaking, which result in weak citizen involvement in public policies (King et al., 1998; Adams, 2004). The utilisation of social media tools and Web 2.0 technologies as a medium for government-citizen interaction will boost citizen engagement and overall satisfaction of government (Mathur, 2010). Through its excellent communication mediums, social media platforms, such as Facebook and YouTube, are enhancing the democratic process via the important role they play in 37

54 online citizen participation (Council of Europe, 2009). The practice of e-democracy utilising Web 2.0 technologies is considered to re-empower citizens (Mejias, 2004). Through the use of Web 2.0 platforms citizens are motivated to take part in policy definition and decision-making activities, even reaching the point of becoming codesigners of public services and active contributors in public value creation (Broster et al., 2011). With Web 2.0 capabilities and social media tools, anything could be taped, publicised, shared and distributed, in an organised way in real-time to a massive number of citizens. This allows non-profit organisations, citizens and loosely organised communities to elevate concerns to the wider community. Furthermore, it also provides a new way of overseeing individuals, including government officials and figures, by the public. This new way of monitoring will make both officials and public organisations more mindful in what they say and do than ever before. On the whole, the use of these advanced technologies in the public sector can enhance openness, accountability, and governance systems (Misuraca, 2012). As previously mentioned, there are several social online tools which are being utilised to take advantage of the effectiveness of citizen s online engagement such as Facebook and Twitter. These online tools offer citizens the capability to post, discuss, share content, be involved in dialogue and work collectively on public policies (Sheridan et al., 2008). These tools are utilised by citizens and groups as platforms to organise their demonstrations and campaigns to raise their concerns and collective voice. Web 2.0 platforms, such as Mash-ups, afford citizens as well as private organisations the capability to mix various groups of data to be reused. This can lead to innovative approaches to dealing with a number of government issues (Baumgarten & Chui, 2009). Allowing citizens and social media access to a large amount of sensitive and confidential information and facts for reuse through social media initiatives will improve government transparency, the sharing of this information and facts on social media can increase dissemination. This will force government organisations and officials to improve their policy and practice and to be more accountable, consequently enabling greater governance systems. Thus, Gov 2.0 has significant potential to enhance public sector accountability (Misuraca, 2012). Through the replacement of government tasks by bottom-up user driven innovation, online interaction using social media tools also has another possible impact upon public 38

55 organisations where public value can also be generated by citizens (Misuraca, 2012). In The Wisdom of Crowds, Surowiecki (2005) emphasised crowdsourcing as an attempt to capture the concept of mining ideas from massive numbers of people. Howe (2008) defines crowdsourcing as the act of taking a job traditionally performed by a designated agent (usually an employee) and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call (p. 1). Citizens use of Gov 2.0 initiatives can encourage crowdsourcing by helping those who share similar interests or concerns to find each other and work collectively within online communities that can be built in any governance area or public service (Misuraca, 2012). The Human Capital Institute (2010b) survey at all US government levels showed that nearly 63% of government organisations are using social media applications internally. This use is mainly for dialogue and information sharing between staff and also with other organisations, as well as externally to improve information and services provision to the community. Additionally, the agencies that utilise Web 2.0 applications were optimistic about the long-term effects these applications will have on increased collaboration and dialogue. They indicated that social media is powerful and essential for contacting citizens and obtaining feedback (Human Capital Institute, 2010a). Citizens feedback through social media platforms had a positive impact on responsiveness and transparency (Mergel, 2012). While the use of social media tools improved government interactions with citizens and allowed them to create direct and immediate feedback, on the other hand it increased citizens demands to receive realtime feedback from government (Mergel, 2012). These feedback cycles allow government to determine their citizens needs and positively put into practice further functionalities (Mergel, 2012) which can improve their professionalism. The process of addressing governmental response to issues raised on social media through discussion or solving of local issues improves citizen s trust in government (Kim & Robinson, 2012), and can improve the quality of public services and public sector organisations efficiency and effectiveness (Misuraca, 2012) Gov 2.0 and public service quality A number of factors can contribute to the quality of services delivered online. In an e- government context, system quality is one of the main constructs used to measure the quality of service (Wang & Liao, 2008), and is shown to be inextricably linked to 39

56 service quality (Halaris et al., 2007; Wang & Liao, 2008). Citizens can perceive the system quality through its adaptability (Delone & Mclean, 2004; Wang & Liao, 2008), reliability (Delone & Mclean, 2004; Wang & Liao, 2008), stability (Berry, 1995), timeliness (Wixom & Todd, 2005), robustness (Zhang & Prybutok, 2005), friendliness (Papadomichelaki & Mentzas, 2009) and user orientation (Misuraca, 2012). A previous study on public value by Meynhardt (2009) considered those related to public service technical functionality instrumental-utilitarian dimension as a main value dimension. Providing citizens with quality e-government services can create public value, which can be improved by citizens positive experiences of public services (O Flynn, 2007). Given modern public managers view the public as customers, who pay rates and taxes and should receive value in return, they should aim to satisfy citizens demand for high quality e-services (Magoutas et al., 2009). The citizens use of their government s Gov 2.0 initiatives can contribute to a number of values identified by Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007) and directly linked to citizens perceptions of system quality that support services delivered to them through these initiatives. The literature suggests that citizens use of Gov 2.0 initiatives, mainly social media tools, can create and enhance their perceptions of value adaptability (Sutton et al., 2008; Yates & Paquette, 2011), reliability (Yates & Paquette, 2011), stability (Danis et al., 2009), timeliness (Aschoff et al., 2007), robustness (Yates & Paquette, 2011), friendliness (Aschoff et al., 2007), and user orientation (Osimo et al., 2010). Social media tools have the potential to enhance the adaptability of information systems used by government to serve citizens. Sutton et al. (2008) exposed the ability of these platforms to be used flexibly to meet the changing needs of users. Web 2.0 technologies can provide citizens with the ability to respond quickly to changes in the information and the environment, and provide flexibility, adaptability, usability and customizability in both the system and the information, especially in disasters (Yates & Paquette, 2011, p.8). These features make social media tools used by government to serve their citizens robust enough to be reliable platforms for open and timely interaction and exchange of information (Yates & Paquette, 2011). The friendliness of the citizens use of Gov 2.0 initiatives can contribute to their perceptions of the quality of the services obtained through these tools where the use is fairly cheap or cost free, and user friendly (Kloby, 2012). Furthermore, with the new 40

57 innovative approach of the citizens use of Web 2.0 technologies, the public service delivery role is not necessarily only the government s business any more. This approach can allow citizens to express their needs, choices and shape service delivery tools where citizens will play a significant role in framing how services will be provided, additionally they may even take part in the actual delivery (Misuraca, 2012, p. 103) Gov 2.0 and social outcomes Literature suggests that social outcomes can be achieved by increasing citizens perceptions of fairness (Alesina & Angeletos, 2003; Karunasena & Deng, 2012); equity (Kelly et al., 2002); social cohesion (Hariche et al., 2011); public interest (Sreedharan et al., 2011); and common good (Meynhardt, 2009). Gov 2.0 initiatives offer government new collaboration opportunities. These opportunities are not limited to government organisations, but the government can collaborate and work together with citizens too. Furthermore, government can engage citizens in seeking solutions and solving problems for local issues and matters (Wigand, 2012). This type of citizen engagement can boost government interactions with individuals, develop trust with special interest groups, and make better decisions by capturing the value of local knowledge (Glasco, 2012). Gov 2.0 initiatives not only facilitate government interaction with citizens, but also provide them with the opportunity to contact public figures and hear from them directly through its convenient platforms, as the Obama government is doing in the United States. President Obama, in a town hall meeting, received questions from citizens all over the US via Twitter (Galloway & Guthrie, 2010) and/or through the Ask the President blog initiative. While this kind of interaction can be perceived by citizens as transparency, openness or integrity enhancement, it can be perceived as another avenue to have equal treatment or to have their voice heard by highest levels of government. Wigand (2012) concluded that governments are starting to utilise social media to improve transparency, participation, and collaboration through engaging and communicating with stakeholders in debates and taking their ideas further on challenges and initiatives. Furthermore, he argued that this type of paradigm shift from monologue towards dialogue, in particular, could foster a sense of community. Furthermore, the relationships built through these interactions, and the trust and confidence being formulated on these platforms is going to have an impact upon community construction (Van Bavel et al., 2004). 41

58 How public value of e-government has been evaluated in the literature is reviewed in the coming section. 2.5 PUBLIC VALUE EVALUATION The public value approach has become a new tool to evaluate the level of public services success as seen in the UK, Australia and some other countries. For instance, the BBC and Scottish Government have used public value to evaluate police forces, local authorities, public sports and arts (Talbot, 2008). A considerable number of tools have been developed to help the public sector evaluate their efforts in implementing e- government initiatives using the public value approach including AGIMO (2004), Kearns (2004), The European Commission (2006), Grimsley and Meehan (2007), Golubeva (2007), Karunasena and Deng (2009, 2010, 2011), and Karunasena et al. (2011). AGIMO (2004) developed a method for Australian public sector agencies to assess the demand for and value of e-government initiatives. This approach allows public sector organisations to evaluate the organisational financial value, users financial value, social value, and governance value produced by their e-government initiatives. However, the AGIMO s (2004) framework generally assigns more importance towards monetary value instead of taking into consideration societal and citizen values. The framework favours the utilisation of cost benefit evaluation, commonly used to assess finance within the private sector. Kearns (2004) adapted the main public value concepts of Kelly et al. (2002) within the context of e-government, arguing that the success level of e-government initiatives from a public value perspective should be evaluated based on the following set of key criteria (Kearns, 2004) including: the provision of services that are widely used; increased levels of user satisfaction with services; increased information and choice available to service users; greater focus on the services that the public believes to be most important; increased focus of new and innovative services towards those most in need; 42

59 reduced costs of service provision; improved delivery of outcomes; and a contribution to improve levels of trust between citizens and public institutions. The main shortcoming of Kearns (2004) framework is that it focuses on evaluating public value created through the delivery of quality public services. The framework considers only a limited number of e-government service quality elements and components such as information and system quality. Furthermore, it does not offer any indicators on how to measure e-government contributions toward public trust or outcomes from the public value perspective. As depicted by Moore (1995), public value is rooted in individuals who are citizens and it should be perceived by them; the framework does not take into account the values related to the relationship between public administration and citizens such as: equal treatment, equity, fairness, dialogue, responsiveness, user democracy, citizen involvement, citizen s self-development, user orientation, timeliness, and friendliness. The European Commission (2006) proposed a measurement framework constructed upon the three value drivers of efficiency, democracy, and effectiveness, and detailed multidimensional evaluation tools of e-government public value as shown in figure 2.6. The framework includes both quantitative and qualitative financial impacts. Each driver of these evaluation tools is evaluated through three indicators. The efficiency driver is assessed by investigating (a) public agency cashable financial gains, (b) the level of empowerment of public employees, and (c) the organisational and IT architecture. The contributions of these indicators lead to financial and organisational value. The democracy driver is assessed by investigating (a) openness of the organisation, (b) organisation transparency and the accountability, and (c) citizens participation. The contributions of these indicators lead to political value. The effectiveness driver is assessed by investigating (a) administrative burden reduction, (b) users value and satisfaction, and (c) more inclusive public services. The contributions of these indicators lead to constituency value. 43

60 Figure 2.6: e-government Economics Project (egep) measurement framework (European Commission, 2006) The framework of the European Commission (2006) is developed to assess the public value of European nations where e-government maturity levels are closer to Australian e-government maturity levels. However, this framework does not focus on citizens main perceptions of public value. Rather the framework focuses on the e-administration side of government, mainly constituency, financial and organisational values. The egep framework has been improved to egep 2.0 by Savoldelli et al. (2013), however, this improvement was not available during the development of this study frame work in and it could not be included in this discussion. Grimsley and Meehan (2007) developed a framework for evaluation of e-government projects based on Moor s concept of public value. The framework takes into account citizens and clients perceptions of service provision and service outcomes as contributors to the formation of public trust. The framework was developed and validated based on two UK case studies. The framework focuses on relational pathways between public value production concepts including service provision, service related outcomes, user satisfaction, and trust as shown in figure 2.7. The components of the proposed framework suggest the relationship between outcomes, service provision and trust in regards to three experiential proportions: a sense of being well-informed, a sense of personal control in one s life and a sense of influence, which appear to drive trust and satisfaction (Grimsley & Meehan, 2007, p. 146). 44

61 Figure 2.7: Framework for concepts and relational pathways for public value production (Grimsley & Meehan, 2007) Grimsley and Meehan s (2007) framework is developed to mainly evaluate e- government projects based upon Moore s concept of public value. Nevertheless, the framework evaluates how the service provision contributes to citizens trust and satisfaction where the sense of being well-informed, a sense of personal control in one s life and a sense of influence as the main drivers. Thus, this framework can be useful to investigate the concepts and relational pathways for public value, but it would not be effective to evaluate e-government public values, especially as it does not provide measures to assess public values (service provision, service outcomes, and trust). Another evaluation framework was developed to assess the potential governance quality improvement of regional government portals of the Russian Federation government. Golubeva (2007) developed a framework on the basis of the public value concept (see figure 2.8). The framework was built on the main sources of public value identified by Moore (1995) and Kelly et al. s (2002) quality of public services, public trust, and public policy outcomes. The proposed framework used the openness, citizen-centricity and usability indicators to assess the service quality dimension. The public trust dimension was measured using transparency and interactivity indicators. 45

62 Figure 2.8: Indicators for government portals assessment and their impact on public value (Golubeva, 2007) The main shortcoming of Golubeva s (2007) framework is the limitation of indicators to assess the production of public value. While the framework does not suggest direct indicators to evaluate the success in public policy outcomes, it suggests that public service quality can contribute to the public policy outcomes. This framework suggested only three indicators (openness, citizen-centric, and usability) to evaluate the public value of public service quality and consequently public policy outcomes. Furthermore, the public value created through public trust can be measured using two indicators (transparency and interactivity). This limitation of indicators will not reflect the real value perceived by citizens from the use of the government portal, especially if we take into consideration the use of Web 2.0 applications and, in particular, social media tools. With the growth in attractiveness of the Public Value concept, and a situation where it becomes the main motivation for governments around the globe to implement and develop e-government initiatives, Karunasena and Deng (2009, 2010) proposed and developed conceptual frameworks for evaluating the public value of e-government in Sri Lanka from the citizens perspective. The framework considered the uniqueness of e-government development in Sri Lanka, as a developing country where e-government is still not mature. Karunasena and Deng (2011) responded to the need for filling various shortcomings in available frameworks. In this regard, they also revised their conceptual frameworks for evaluating public value of e-government (2009, 2010). The modified framework used an extensive analysis of the appropriate literature and empirically examined and validated through structural equation modelling survey data gathered in Sri Lanka. The framework developed by Karunasena and Deng (2011) is considered to be an improvement on their first frameworks (Karunasena and Deng, 2009, 2010). Figure

63 illustrates the Karunasena and Deng (2011) revised conceptual framework for evaluating public value of e-government (PUBVAL). The modified framework includes three main drivers of public value. These include: delivery of quality public services (DPS), efficiency of public organisations (EPO), and achievement of socially desirable outcomes (ASO). The first source dimension evaluated three indicators: quality of information, delivery of services, and user orientation of public services. The second dimension, efficiency of public organisations (EPO), assessed via three indicators included organisation efficiency, openness, and responsiveness. The achievement of socially desirable outcomes (ASO) dimension measured five indicators counting equity, self-development of citizens, trust, democracy, and environmental sustainability. Figure 2.9: Conceptual framework for evaluating public value of e-government (Karunasena & Deng, 2011) The main limitations of the Karunasena and Deng frameworks are that all these frameworks have been developed essentially to suit the unique situation in developing countries, namely Sri Lanka. The majority of citizens in Sri Lanka are live in rural areas, have low e-readiness, low ICT literacy, poor information infrastructure, and low householder internet penetration (Karunasena & Deng, 2009). These frameworks are therefore unsuitable to be used in developed countries, such as Australia, with the mature e-government initiatives. Karunasena and Deng (2011) attempted to upgrade and cover the shortcomings of their previous frameworks, which they stressed inherited Kearns (2004) issues of limited indicators for assessing achievements associated with socially desirable outcomes and service quality. Moreover, these frameworks neglect to take into account public values in society and employ a large amount of secondary data, which is not helpful when examining actual 47

64 public value perceived by citizens (Karunasena & Deng, 2011). The Karunasena and Deng (2011) revised framework also does not take into account the values related to the relationship between public administration and the citizens such as: equal treatment, fairness, dialogue, user democracy, citizen involvement, timeliness, and friendliness. Another shortcoming of this framework is that it does not take into account the public values such as: common good, public interest, social cohesion. Besides that the values linked to public-sector employees behaviour also neglected too, such as: accountability, professionalism, honesty, and integrity. Whereas such frameworks are relatively different in their methods, they all concern validity and reliability (Kearns, 2004; Golubeva, 2007; Friedland & Gross, 2010). Some frameworks (e.g. AGIMO 2004) can apply to private sector measurements including return on investment mechanisms within the public sector (Friedland & Gross, 2010). The use of Web 2.0 in the public sector promotes services that add value for individuals and societies, which cannot be depicted in economic terms. In addition to validity and reliability issues, other frameworks that implement social values have been considered in a limited context, where other social values are considered during assessment procedures (World Bank, 2007). All previous frameworks discussed propose methods for assessing non fiscal quantitative and qualitative returns. The frameworks reviewed previously have different shortcomings and as a consequence, they are inappropriate for evaluating public value created through the use of Government 2.0. The main shortcoming that applied to all frameworks discussed was that none of them have been developed as a basis for evaluating the public value of Gov 2.0, where Web 2.0 technologies and social media tools are implemented and used by government to interact and serve their constituents. Furthermore, none of these frameworks investigate public value created at the local level in the government hierarchy where the government is very close to citizens. While the literature clearly indicates the potential of Gov 2.0 initiatives to generate various public values for citizens who use these initiatives, little is known about how these initiatives contribute towards public value creation. To our knowledge, up to date there is no empirical study that assess the public value of Gov 2.0 in particular. Therefore, this study is posing the main RQ: How do Gov 2.0 initiatives contribute towards public value creation? 48

65 In most cases the methods reviewed in this chapter can indeed be relatively comprehensive, addressing the complete theoretical range of e-government initiatives and offering in-depth procedures and methods for formulating assessment constructs and capturing related indicator values. However, interpretation and understanding of public values are considerably different between states and societies (Jørgensen & Bozeman, 2007). Such interpretations can differ from those that need to be implemented in a framework developed to evaluate Gov 2.0 initiatives in Victoria, Australia. Therefore, to answer the study RQ systematically, this study needs to firstly find out whether the Victorian local governments are working towards creating public value. Secondly, if they are aiming to do so, what values do Victorian citizens perceive from their use of these initiatives and how they perceive them. These inquiries will be formulated as sub-research questions as follows: a) What aims do government officials have in implementing Gov 2.0 initiatives to create public value? b) What public values do citizens perceive from using Gov 2.0 initiatives? c) How do citizens perceive public values from their use of Gov 2.0 initiatives? In summary, the researcher draws on various topics in Information Systems and Public Administration fields as well as other insights from social media to enlighten relations between Web 2.0 and Gov 2.0 that inspire the creation of public value and government innovation. To adequately address the above issues, it is important to develop a framework to successfully and adequately evaluate the public value of Gov 2.0 initiatives within an Australian local government context. The next section will summarise the idea of Public Value, its main sources, and public value inventories to present an overview of the theoretical framework. 49

66 2.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY This chapter aimed to discuss the literature against which this research project is set, mainly the development of e-government, and the public value concept and how it used to evaluate the performance of e-government. The chapter also critically reviewed existing frameworks developed to evaluate public value of e-government. The review of these frameworks shows that besides validity and reliability issues, they have significant shortcomings. For example, none of the frameworks have been developed on the basis of evaluating the public value of Gov 2.0 or developed to investigate public value created at local government level. Therefore, to adequately address the above issues, it is important to develop a framework to successfully and adequately evaluate the public value of Gov 2.0 initiatives in the Australian local government context. 50

67 Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 3.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND The use of the public value concept to assess public sector and Gov 2.0 initiatives is relatively new. This research mainly aims to investigate and assess the latter. In order to achieve the research target and objectives, a comprehensive theoretical framework is needed to provide a solid basis for conducting both quantitative and qualitative research. From a quantitative research perspective, the theoretical framework informs the development of a research survey questionnaire. From a qualitative research perspective, the theoretical framework helps to build the interview questions as well as allowing for the undertaking of thematic analysis around the interview data in a constructive way. The theoretical framework has been designed in accordance with three theoretical concepts: (1) the concept of Public Value (Moore, 1995), (2) the main sources of public value creation (Kelly et al., 2002), and (3) public values inventories (Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007). As discussed earlier (see 2.3), these three concepts are useful and can be used as theoretical background for developing a theoretical framework to evaluate the public value of Gov 2.0. The primary concept for supporting the proposed framework is Moore s public value theory. He describes public value as that which the government creates for its people, and public managers should focus on creating public value by satisfying individual and collective desires. He states that value is rooted in the desires and perceptions of individuals. (Moore, p, 52). Public value is regularly defined as the value created by the government for citizens (Moore, 1995; Kelly et al., 2002), and it is rooted, ultimately, in society and culture in individuals and groups (Melchior & Melchior, 2001). Therefore, taking into account a G2C perspective of e-government is essential in evaluating the public value of Gov 2.0. This study focuses on the potential public value created through the interactions taking place through Gov 2.0 initiatives from the citizens perspective (G2C), and does not focus on the other e-government interactions such as G2B. 51

68 The wider impact of e-government rests on its ability to deliver social and political values related to public service delivered (Cordella, 2007). New Public Management suggests that e-government can improve government efficiency, effectiveness and performance. Yet, the Public Value concept as developed by Moore (1995) suggests that e-government can deliver is social outcomes that match citizens expectations (Bonina and Cordella, 2009). If the impact of Gov 2.0 initiatives is evaluated through NPM prescriptions, which are highly weighted towards efficiency, effectiveness and performance the greater impact of the government use of Gov 2.0 initiatives will be neglected. The second concept constitutes three main sources of public value creation: (1) development of public trust in government (Moore, 1995; Kelly et al., 2002; Kearns, 2004), (2) quality of public services delivered (Moore, 1995; Kelly et al., 2002; Kearns, 2004; O Flynn, 2007; Karunasena & Deng, 2011), and (3) social outcomes (Kelly et al., 2002; Kearns, 2004; Karunasena & Deng, 2011). The public sector can create value that can be truly valued by citizens in several ways (Kelly et al., 2002), for instance, the quality of public services delivered is driven by service availability, satisfaction levels with services, importance of services offered, fairness of service provision, and cost (Kearns, 2004). Trust, legitimacy and confidence in authorities are critical in the relationship between citizens and government and are essential for public value creation (Kelly et al., 2002). Outcomes comprise the development and sustainability of citizens common expectations (O Flynn, 2007) of fundamental values in democratic nations of the collective ambition for example fairness, equity, equality (Moore, 1995), social cohesion, citizen involvement, and dialogue (Jørgensen & Bozeman, 2007). The third concept is Jørgensen and Bozeman s (2007) public value inventory. These authors classified public values into seven categories (constellations) and assigned public value sets to each category (see section 2.3): (1) values associated with the public sector s contribution to society, 2) values associated with the transformation of interests to decisions, 3) values associated with the relationship between public administrators and politicians, 4) values associated with the relationship between public administrators and their environment, 5) values associated with intra-organisational aspects of public administration, 6) values associated with the behaviour of public-sector employees, and 7) values associated with the relationship between public administration and citizens 52

69 (Jørgensen & Bozeman, 2007). In the Gov 2.0 environment, the literature suggests that many of the values included in these inventories are highly linked to the three main sources of public value creation reviewed earlier (public trust in government, quality of public services delivered, and the achievement of social outcomes). Thus, this study will use Jørgensen and Bozeman s (2007) inventories and associated values by relating them to the main areas of public value as suggested in Gov 2.0 literature. The following section illustrates how these three theoretical concepts are linked, producing a theoretical framework for evaluating the public value of Gov THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The framework proposed for this research is based on the theoretical perspectives discussed in Chapter 2 and incorporates the two main concepts: public value and Gov 2.0. The framework indicators are derived from the public value inventories by Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007) and the literature on e-government evaluation models. It is important to develop a framework to successfully and adequately evaluate the public value of Gov 2.0 to adequately address the aforementioned shortcomings and associated issues. Many of the values listed in Jørgensen and Bozeman s (2007) inventory can be adopted from the public administration field for evaluating public value created through the use of Gov 2.0 initiatives, as shown in the proposed theoretical framework (figure 3.1). 53

70 Figure 3.1 Proposed theoretical framework for evaluating the public value of Gov 2.0 The above figure can be created by the development of public trust in government, quality of public services delivered, and the achievement of social outcomes. Each of these hypotheses will now be discussed. 54

71 3.2.1 Development of public trust The development of public trust in government is one of the main sources of public value (Moore, 1995; Kelly et al., 2002; Kearns, 2004). Within Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007) public value inventories, the literature suggests there are 11 values that can contribute to public trust in government including: responsiveness (Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006; Gauld et al., 2009); user democracy (Goldfinch, 2009); citizen involvement (Christensen & Lægreid, 2005); self-development (Roberts, 2002); dialogue (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009; Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012); listening to public opinion (Yang, 2005); openness (Persson, 2000); professionalism (Misuraca, 2012); honesty (Ulbig, 2004); integrity (Keele, 2007), and accountability (Bozeman, 2002). In this study s proposed framework, these values measure public value created in the development of public trust in government through the implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives, as shown in figure 3.2 and discussed below. Figure 3.2 Evaluation of development of public trust in government through Gov 2.0 Responsiveness is the level to which online services are delivered to citizens which inform them with a rapid response (Tan et al., 2008), and this determines the degree to which public institutions match the demands of their public (Jørgensen & Bozeman, 2007). Government can enhance citizen trust online by increasing dialogue with citizens and thereby increasing perceptions of responsiveness (Coleman & Gotze, 2001; Welch et al., 2005; Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006). Gov 2.0 can facilitate immediate and direct feedback and responsiveness similar to face- to-face interactions (Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Joinson, 2008). Gov 2.0 initiatives can also enhance the relationship between citizens 55

72 and government in policy-making processes which allow for additional participatory democracy as well as a robust democracy (Nabatchi & Mergel, 2010). Responsiveness is also explicitly linked to government transparency (La Porte et al., 2002), reflecting government willingness to provide citizens with information and services. Lack of of transparency of government can be perceived by citizens as being unresponsive or unwilling to serve them (La Porte et al., 2002). User democracy can be interpreted as an institutionalized mechanism for feedback from users, which complements other forms of user feedback (Andersen et al., 2012, p.6). Citizen practice of democracy online using Web 2.0 technologies is considered as re-empowering citizens (Mejias, 2004) and is linked to public trust in government (Goldfinch, 2009). For citizens to be empowered, they need to obtain information and work collectively with others (McClelland, 1975). Government use of Web 2.0 technologies assists the empowerment of citizens by offering information and suitable platforms to participate and engage with others. Web 2.0 is essentially about the wisdom of crowds, where the information shared and disseminated online is very easy and quick (Godwin, 2009). Gov 2.0 was initiated to provide citizens with an innovative role in public service delivery and governance activities through the use of social networking platforms (Osimo, 2008). Citizen dialogue on Gov 2.0 platforms is very important for boosting democratic enablement because it enhances the politicians degree of understanding of their constituents viewpoints (Meynhardt, 2009). Dialogue is one of the principles of Web 2.0 (Wigand, 2012) where Web 2.0 is mainly about removing citizen participation barriers, and user democracy is its main result (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). Citizen involvement creates improved participation in the democratic practice of government (Cresswell et al., 2006) and this engagement is essential to governmentcitizen dialogue such as citizen involvement in local planning hearings in local governments (Jørgensen & Bozeman, 2007). The concepts citizen participation and citizen involvement are intrinsically linked (Isaías et al., 2012). Citizen participation is the social process of taking part (voluntarily) in either formal or informal activities, programmes and/or discussions to bring about a planned change or improvement in community life, services and /or resources (Bracht, 1991, p.478). Citizen involvement and participation enhance trust in their local councils and political parties (Christensen & Lægreid, 2005), and incorporates various forms of citizen activities in local 56

73 community problem-solving, including self-help groups. Citizen involvement and participation can make a significant contribution to improving citizens understanding of processes, enhancing the quality of decisions, promoting citizen empowerment and supporting democratic citizenship (Innes & Booher, 1999; Owens, 2011). Self-development refers to the empowerment of an individual s abilities, skills, and knowledge, as that person augments and realizes his or her personal potential (Savolainen & Kari, p, 416). Frissen (2005) stressed that the empowerment of users is one of the vital features of Web 2.0 technologies. User empowerment involves citizen empowerment (Misuraca, 2012). Empowering individuals through open dialogue is one of the main concepts behind Gov 2.0 (Sadeghi et al., 2012). Web 2.0 technologies implemented by government enable citizens to conduct a dialogue with community professionals and government officials, informing themselves and expressing their opinions. Citizen dialogue with public officials and politicians on Web 2.0 platforms supported with other features, such as accessible data and information, several accessible sources, and exchange of information and knowledge, can lead to citizen development. Dialogue refers to any negotiated exchange of ideas and opinions (Kent & Taylor, 1998, p. 325). The relationship between trust and dialogue is extensively linked, while trust is crucial and necessary for dialogue (Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012), ongoing interactions and positive encounters, thus Gov 2.0 initiatives can improve the initial trust of users (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009). E-government initiatives are not only about an exchange of ideas and opinions (Kent & Taylor, 1998) or a way of understanding what citizens need or think, but it fosters a more meaningful understanding of the ways in which citizens think (Pieczka, 2011). Gov 2.0 initiatives changed the way citizens engaged in dialogue with government in order to resolve problems. This change was viewed as the government shifting from one direction to two-way directional dialogue with public officials paying more attention to citizens opinions and seeking their feedback (Wigand, 2012). Through continuous dialogue and sharing of values with citizens, government can plan for new services, innovative socio-economic solutions, and an improved quality of life (Glasco, 2012). The appreciative interactions developed during such dialogue, regardless of the groups involved, will help to develop trust and enhance relationships (Finegold et al., 2002). Government can enhance citizen trust 57

74 online by increasing dialogue with its citizens (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009; Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012). Listening to public opinion is responding more specifically to the opinion expressed in the media or in opinion polls. (Jørgensen & Bozeman, 2007, P.364). Social media tools can be used as a means of communicating with different groups of citizens where government officials can listen, discuss, and monitor public opinions expressed about certain issues or services. Gov 2.0 initiatives allow government to experience on-going dialogue on a semi-public platform (Chadwick, 2008), post materials on social media (e.g. YouTube, Twitter, Flicker and Facebook) to establish public debate and consultation including links to related government Web pages or services to enrich the debate or discussion. The level of government listening to citizens expressed opinions can reflect citizens trust in government (Yang, 2005). Openness is the only way to win trust (Persson, 2000). Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007) refer to the openness of government services as transparency. Openness indicates the degree to which government agencies show their decision-making processes and publish information and facts in a timely manner (Wong & Welch, 2004). Gov 2.0 initiatives make it possible for citizens to obtain a better picture of the performance of government. Furthermore, Gov 2.0 offers innovative means of openness through the enormous capability it offers for interaction and content sharing (Mergel, 2012). Openness impacts the improvement of relationships because it involves the readiness of partners to reveal and share sensitive data and information (Mayer & Salovey, 1993). This in turn increases citizens trust as they have an increased ability to access government information and consequently improve their perceptions of openness (Shim & Eom, 2008). Gov 2.0 is founded on the concept of providing citizens with an innovative role in public services, governance and content sharing (Osimo, 2008) and thus openness (Mergel, 2012). This can have an impact on citizens perceptions of their government s openness (Wigand, 2012). Professionalism within government implies that citizens can anticipate service delivery at a standard level of quality (Liff & Andersson, 2013). The wisdom of crowds feature of social media can be a governmental professionalism driver, where well-informed citizens can contribute significantly towards government accountability. Citizens sharing of information and facts on social media can increase diffusion among citizens. This will force government officials to improve their policy and practice, and also to be 58

75 more accountable. Thus, Gov 2.0 initiatives (mainly social media tools) have significant potential to enhance government professionalism and consequently public trust in government (Misuraca, 2012). Gov 2.0 wisdom of crowds feature can improve policy discussion and thus the level of government professionalism outcomes. Honesty refers to whether participants believe that the government agency performs its duties soundly, i.e. tells the truth. (Grimmelikhuijsen, 2009, p.175) and involves the fundamentals of honesty (Guthrie et al., 1990). Citizen's perceptions of public officials honesty influence public trust (Ulbig, 2004). Citizens interaction with Gov 2.0 initiatives can monitor and evaluate the honesty of information published by government about its performance. Integrity is defined as a discrete component of good character categorised by the consistency of words and actions (Palanski & Yammarino, 2007). Integrity in government is a fundamental value, especially in Gov 2.0 where the use of social media tools enable citizens to put pressure on governments to ensure they always put the interest of the public first. For example, integrity has been acknowledged as one of the main principals in the Open Government Declaration by the Open Government Partnership group (Open Government Partnership, 2011). Keele (2007) stressed that elected officials will gain their constituents trust if they can prove their integrity and meet their expectations. Accountability implies an obligation to explain to someone else, who has authority to assess the account and allocate praise or blame for what was done or not done (Jones & Stewart, p, 59). The concept of accountability is very important in the government-citizen relationship (Bozeman, 2002). Governments can enhance citizen trust online by increasing the level of interaction with citizens and thereby raise perceptions of accountability (Bertot et al., 2010b). Accountability is highly linked to government s clarity of the justification of its operations (Blagescu & Lloyd, 2006). Thus Gov 2.0 is extremely important in the way government justifies accountability to the public (Sadeghi et al., 2012). For instance, providing access to government data for citizens and the private sector generates a culture of accountability, and is also a factor for innovation and to generate value (Fyfe & Crookall, 2012). 59

76 3.2.2 Quality of public services The quality of public services delivery is one of the key drivers of public value (Kelly et al., 2002; Kearns, 2004). This area concerns the public value citizens perceive from the technical functionality of the technology used to support and deliver Gov 2.0 services (Meynhardt, 2009). A previous study in public value by Meynhardt (2009) considered the public values related to technical functionality instrumental-utilitarian dimension of public services as the main value. From Jørgensen and Bozeman s (2007) public value inventories, literature suggests there are seven values that can contribute to the quality of public services delivered through Gov 2.0 including adaptability (Delone & Mclean, 2004), reliability (Delone & Mclean, 2004), stability (Berry, 1995), timeliness (Wixom & Todd, 2005), robustness (Zhang & Prybutok, 2005), friendliness (Papadomichelaki & Mentzas, 2009) and user orientation (Misuraca, 2012). In this study s proposed framework, these values are used as indicators to measure the public value created in quality of public services delivered through Gov 2.0 initiatives as shown in figure 3.3 and discussed below. Figure 3.3: Evaluation of quality of public service delivered through Gov 2.0 Adaptability refers to how easily technology can be changed to extend its utilisation (Pérez & Murray, 2010). The adaptability of the information system supporting the service contributes to the user s perception of system quality (Delone & Mclean, 2004). In information systems, conditions such as ease of use, ease of learning, flexibility, and clarity of interfaces are essential for adoption (Gefen & Straub, 2000). One of the main advantages that differentiate Web 2.0 from previous technologies is the simplicity of its use (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). Web 2.0 also supports the changing of use conditions, such as when a citizen is moving between locations. Web 2.0 social platforms enhance its adaptability and survivability through interacting and integrating 60

77 with other service systems (Vargo, 2008). Gov 2.0 initiatives associated with social media have inherited these features from Web 2.0 technologies. Furthermore, the popularity of using social media tools among citizens can increase their perception of the ease of Gov 2.0 initiatives. Reliability is the level at which public services provided online are available in an accurate and trustworthy manner (Tan et al., 2008). Citizens should have confidence in the technologies and initiatives implemented by their government. Citizens increased confidence in their government can be achieved through reliable online services (Carter & Bélanger, 2005). The reliability of the information system supporting the service contributes to user s perception of system quality (Delone & Mclean, 2004). Government services on Web 2.0 platforms and social media tools can be accessed at any place that has an Internet connection. Moreover, government services provided through Web 2.0 platforms and social media tools bring together both attributes of centralisation and decentralisation, meaning that citizens who cannot visit council s offices for any reason (e.g. time poor, elderly, or disabled) are able to obtain the same services online. Simultaneously citizens who are travelling or working away from the council geographic area can access and obtain the same services. Stability is related to continuity (Jørgensen & Bozeman, 2007), in that it is about the stability of social systems in retaining the information on social media sites in order to guarantee that information is available, correct, and up-to-date (Danis et al., 2009). Service continuity contributes to the user s perception of service quality (Berry, 1995). Most Gov 2.0 initiatives are mainly proactive services, where citizen can get involved and take part in updating, editing and sharing content. This type of engagement from both sides (government and citizens) provides platforms with high interactivity generated by citizens who are interested in a particular topic. Web 2.0 technology features, such as social networking, social bookmarking, reputation supervision, and ratings, offer ways through which content can be easily navigated, shared, and managed by citizens. Thus, on Gov 2.0 platforms citizens use of features, such as content creation, can enhance the stability of social systems through developing a feeling of ownership among users which in turn stimulates ongoing use and growth of content (Danis et al., 2009). Consequently, Gov 2.0 social platforms remain up-to-date and active compared to other static sites that can be updated only by government authorised officials. 61

78 Timeliness describes the degree to which the information is sufficiently updated and accessible to the user within an adequate timeframe (Aschoff et al., 2007). Because of the active role of citizens in Gov 2.0 services, the value of timeliness can be perceived through many activities. For example, citizens support and contribute to information update processes (Bouzeghoub, 2004). Aschoff et al. (2007) propose that citizens can contribute to: (a) the time it takes for information to become available for the user (publication speed), (b) the speed of change of the referred objects in a certain domain (volatility), and (c) the revision cycle. Furthermore, social media tools, such as Twitter and Facebook, have the ability to disseminate information among citizens in a very short time frame, which can contribute to the perception of service timeliness. Robustness Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007) have clarified that the robustness of public value was adopted from Information Technology. Therefore, we will reuse these values to evaluate the technological aspect of public service quality of Gov 2.0 initiatives. Robustness refers to the ability of a system to maintain function even with changes in internal structure or external environment (Callaway et al., 2000). Within Gov 2.0 environments, citizens can perceive the robustness of government services when they are confident they can connect to government officials and obtain services 24/7. Friendliness refers to the simplicity with which citizens can access, use, navigate and work on a website and content (Lu et al., 2009). User friendliness is an extremely important measure and good for all online service application design. The main focus of any web page design in general is to be easy to follow, clear, and quick to be loaded by users (Yen, 2007). Simplicity of use is an essential factor to determine user-friendliness. Citizens can perceive value by the ease of accessibility to government services through Gov 2.0 initiatives and through the ease of access to services and information, based on their preferences. User orientation refers to the user-centricity of e-government information and services that is directly related to the satisfaction of users (Karunasena & Deng, p, 289). With the capabilities of Gov 2.0 platforms, governments are aiming towards user-centric and user-driven governance instead of silos and government-centricity. The new platforms and tools equip governments with the ability to provide proactive selfservices, service personalisation, and the development of personal service pathways (Osimo et al., 2010). Citizens can perceive the value of citizen-centric services through their direct use of Gov 2.0 initiatives and online tools such as Facebook, Twitter, 62

79 YouTube, blogs, RSS, podcasting, etc. Citizens can participate in policy development in areas of personal interest where they may have knowledge to contribute. They can join or setup virtual communities based on their interests and to gather supporters around their ideas about government services and policies. These examples and approaches illustrate how Gov 2.0 can assist public services to provide additional public value by enhancing the quality of services provided through boosting information, choices and customer-oriented services (Kelly et al., 2002) Achievement of social outcomes Achievement of social outcomes is another significant driver of public value (Kelly et al., 2002; Kearns, 2004). Within Jørgensen and Bozeman s (2007) public value inventories, the literature suggests there are five values that contribute to social outcomes including: fairness (Alesina & Angeletos, 2003; Karunasena & Deng, 2012); equity (Kelly et al., 2002); social cohesion (Hariche et al., 2011); public interest (Sreedharan et al., 2011); and common good (Meynhardt, 2009). In this study s proposed framework, these five values are used as indicators to measure the public value created in the achievement of social outcomes through Gov 2.0 initiatives, as shown in figure 3.4 and discussed below: Figure 3.4: Evaluation of the achievement of social outcomes through Gov 2.0 Fairness perception in management processes by government officials is an essential aspect when citizens evaluate the performance of the governmental system (Erlingsson et al., 2013). The observed fairness associated with citizen interaction with government has a significant effect on citizens acceptance of decisions made by government officials (Esaiasson, 2010). Citizens can perceive value from being treated fairly by their government using Gov 2.0 initiatives in different ways; for instance, citizens can perceive the value of fairness through having fair and equal access to government services for all citizens (Accenture, 2008). Citizens can perceive fairness through 63

80 participatory activities by feeling they have a fair opportunity to express their own thoughts and to have them heard by others including government. On Gov 2.0 platforms, citizens have the same privileges to create, comment, edit, and share information. Gov 2.0 initiatives can offer equal opportunity for all citizens from different backgrounds to participate and contribute in activities such as submit content, share information, retrieve information, answer enquiries and questions, and become involved in active interaction with other citizens and government. In the e-government field, the value of fairness is always associated with the service quality (e.g. Kearns 2004) to assess the fairness of the public services provided online. In a Gov 2.0 context, the fairness value can be related to wider areas than service quality. For example, it can also be related to citizens perceptions of their ability to interact with public figures using Gov 2.0 initiatives, or to their ability to have their voice and opinion heard by others including the government. Alesina and Angeletos (2003. p, 26) argued that fairness can be defined as a metaphor for a social norm that supports a socially preferable outcome. Therefore, this study will relate and use the fairness value as an indicator for the achievement of the social outcomes area. Equity is one of the Western concepts of constitutionalism (Jacucci et al., 2006) where authorities should assure the same treatment of all citizens. Kelly et al. (2002) argue that services provide a vehicle for delivering public value through actual service encounters for users or clients, and the distribution of equity and value for citizens. Some scholars refer to equity as equal and non-discriminatory conduct with citizens. However, for the context of this study, equity refers to the ability of government to customize service provision in order to satisfy the requirements of the various categories of citizens that they serve (Andrews & Van de Walle, 2012). Equality is generally associated with categories such as gender, race, colour, religion or belief, political views, sexual orientation, age, disability or national, social and/or ethnic origin. Governments can enhance public equity through Gov 2.0 initiatives that can be perceived by all citizens as a real value. For instance, in terms of the availability of its applications and services on mobile phones, the ability to ensure that every group in society has the same opportunity to be represented in online debates, and by ensuring that all citizens receive the same information and have the same opportunity for their voice to be heard. 64

81 Social cohesion consists of a sense of belonging and solidarity for citizens with various backgrounds (Cheong et al., 2007) including features such as trust in others, and willingness to assist other citizens. Social cohesion is linked with community homogeneity and contributes to social outcomes (Stanley, 2003). The Canadian federal government social cohesion board defines social cohesion as the ongoing process of developing a community of shared values, shared challenges and equal opportunity within Canada, based on a sense of trust, hope and reciprocity among all Canadians (quoted from Jenson, 1998, P.4). In this sense, Gov 2.0 initiatives can contribute to the community s social cohesion. Government can create social cohesion utilising social media platforms by offering citizens opportunities to join virtual interest groups via their local government sites (Hariche et al., 2011). Likewise, government can use social media tools to invite citizens to attend and participate in social events within their local community. These types of activities supported by Gov 2.0 initiatives can bring citizens together, open new channels and help breakdown social and cultural barriers. Public interest refers to those outcomes best serving the long-run survival and wellbeing of a social collective construed as a public (Bozeman, 2012, P.7). Government 2.0 initiatives such as social media tools support citizen dialogue and crowdsourcing. Such features allow citizens to express and share their needs, choices, and shape decisions and collective interest, considered as public interest. Citizens use of Gov 2.0 initiatives has changed the concept of public interest from the aggregation of individual interests to dialogue about shared values (Kim & Robinson, 2012). Government 2.0 initiatives utilising social media tools support citizen dialogue and crowdsourcing. Such features allow citizens to express and share their needs, choices, and shape decisions and collective interest, considered as public interest. This will yield better policy decisions and thus better outcomes for all society (Irvin & Stansbury, 2004). Common good means the wellbeing, participation and contribution of all citizens in society (Maina, 2011), and government must generate or contribute to the common good (Jørgensen & Bozeman, 2007). In their public value inventories, Jørgensen and Bozeman ignored the criticism about insubstantial and worthless common good and public interest concepts. The authors argue that it does not matter how diffuse these concepts might be, they do include specific characteristic expectations, and governments have to serve society in general, not only groups with particular interests. 65

82 The ability of social media tools to facilitate citizens dialogue and debate will encourage individual participants to engage in collective thinking about the common good. Individuals will not stop at stating their preferences, but will go on to re-shape those preferences in terms of consensus values for ecosystem goods and services (Wilson & Howarth, 2002, p. 439) and this will guarantee socially fair outcomes Theoretical framework hypothesis In addition, as Jørgensen and Bozeman (2007) have concluded, public value is not governmental (2007, p. 372). The proposed theoretical framework (see figure 3.5) suggests that in the environment of Gov 2.0 citizens can contribute significantly in public value creation together with their local governments. This contribution is mainly sourced from public value areas identified by Moore (1995), Kelly et al. (2002) and Kearns (2004) (i.e. development of public trust in government, quality of public services delivered, and the achievement of social outcomes), and can be assessed through them. Based on the earlier discussion on how Gov 2.0 can contribute to the development of the three main areas of public value, this study offers the following hypotheses: H1: The public value of Gov 2.0 is reflected by the value of the development of public trust in government through Gov 2.0 services provided. H2: The public value of Gov 2.0 is reflected by the value of the quality of public services provided through Gov 2.0 platforms. H3: The public value of Gov 2.0 is reflected by the value of the social outcomes achieved through Gov 2.0 services provided. 66

83 Figure 3.5: Theoretical framework hypothesis for evaluating public value of Gov 2.0 The development of public trust in government will be measured through citizens perceptions of responsiveness, user democracy, citizen involvement, self-development, dialogue, listening to public opinion, openness, professionalism, honesty, integrity, and accountability. The quality of public services delivered will be measured through citizens perceptions of adaptability, reliability, stability, timeliness, robustness, friendliness, and user orientation. The achievements of social outcomes will be measured through citizens perceptions of fairness, equity, social cohesion, public interest, and the common good as shown in figure 3.5. Table 3.1 summarises the theoretical framework dimensions and indicators that lead to the development of the study hypothesis and survey questionnaire. 67

84 Table 3.1 A summary of the dimensions and indicators of the theoretical framework Dimension Indicator References Development of public trust Responsiveness (West, 2004; Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006; Decman, 2007; Gauld et al., 2009) User democracy (Goldfinch, 2009) Quality of public services Achievement of social outcomes Citizen involvement (Christensen & Lægreid, 2005) Self-development (Roberts, 2002; European Commison, 2006; United Nations, 2010) Dialogue (United Naitons, 2005; Grabner-kräuter, 2009; Listening to public opinion Openness Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012) (Yang, 2005; Chadwick, 2008) (Persson, 2000; Shim & Eom, 2008; Anderson, 2009) Professionalism (Misuraca, 2012) Honesty (Ulbig, 2004) Integrity (Keele, 2007) Accountability (Bozeman, 2002; Bertot et al., 2010b) Adaptability (Delone & Mclean, 2004) Reliability (Delone & Mclean, 2004) Stability (Berry, 1995; Danis et al., 2009) Timeliness (Bouzeghoub, 2004; Wixom & Todd, 2005; Aschoff et al., 2007) Robustness (Callaway et al., 2000) Friendliness User orientation (Misuraca, 2012) Fairness (Carrzales et al., 2008; Papadomichelaki & Mentzas, 2009) (Alesina & Angeletos, 2003; Karunasena & Deng, 2012) Equity (Smith, 2001; Kelly et al., 2002; West, 2004; Karunasena & Deng, 2010) Social cohesion (Hariche et al., 2011) Public interest (Sreedharan et al., 2011) Common good (Meynhardt, 2009) This chapter is designed to develop a theoretical framework for this study. The framework proposed in figure 3.1 resulted from a broad literature review of public value and Gov 2.0. The literature suggests that the use of Gov 2.0 initiatives (mainly social media tools by Victorian local government) can contribute significantly to the main areas of public value: a) development of public trust in government, b) quality of public services delivered, and c) the achievement of social outcomes. The theoretical framework represents a starting point for understanding public value phenomena from the point of view of citizens who use Gov 2.0 initiatives implemented by Victorian local government and for assessing how citizens perceive value from their use of these initiatives. A theoretical framework is developed based on theoretical perspectives of public value areas as determined by Moore (1995), Kelly et al. (2002) and Kearns (2004). These perspectives were matched to applicable public values listed in Jørgensen 68

85 and Bozeman s (2007) public values inventories. The framework sets the basis for planning, and also applying quantitative and qualitative measures for this study. From a quantitative research perspective, the theoretical framework helps select the most appropriate local governments to implement the research and further, to develop a benchmark to base the evaluating process against. At the same time it directs the development of the survey questionnaire. From a qualitative research perspective, the theoretical framework assists to build the interview questionnaire as well as allowing for the undertaking of thematic analysis around the interview data in a constructive way. 69

86 Chapter 4: Research Methodology 4.1 INTRODUCTION The previous chapters aggregated the literature and conceptualised the public value of Gov 2.0 initiatives from the citizens point of view. This chapter will explain the methodological approach used for exploring how Gov 2.0 initiatives contribute towards public value creation. A sequential multiphase mixed methods strategy was preferred for undertaking this research through a pragmatic philosophical worldview. A pragmatic worldview combined with the theoretical framework detailed in the previous chapter will assist with data collection and analysis, as well as discovering how citizens perceive value from using Gov 2.0 initiatives. The next section (4.2) presents the research approaches used in this study that provide a discussion on philosophical perspectives adopted by this research and describes the research design. Section 4.3 provides a detailed discussion of the research strategy. Section 4.4 discusses the research context including the development of e-government at Australian government levels: federal, state, and local councils. This section also highlights the current situation of e-government maturity levels in Australia compared with other nations around the globe. In addition, this chapter also explains the sampling selection process in section 4.5. Followed by an explanation of how the sequential multiphase mixed methods strategy is implemented in the study in section 4.6. Section 4.7 presents a summary of the data analysis applied in this study. Reliability and validity are discussed in sections 4.8 and 4.9 respectively. Furthermore, ethical considerations are illustrated in section 4.10, followed by the chapter summary. 4.2 RESEARCH APPROACHES Creswell (2009) identified three forms of approach that can be used by the researcher that reflect different philosophical worldviews including quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. The author uses a framework for research design to explain how the researcher s philosophical worldview assumptions, strategies of inquiry, and research methods intersect (see figure 4.1). 70

87 Figure 4.1: Framework for research design (Creswell, 2009) Philosophical perspectives Defining the appropriate philosophical position for this research is the initial step in determining the relevant research methodology and methods in order to achieve the research aim and to answer the research inquiry. Research philosophy can be defined as the development of the research background, research knowledge and its nature (Saunders et al., 2007). The research philosophy chosen directs the researcher in developing the philosophical assumptions as well as to select appropriate tools, instruments, participants, and methods for implementing the research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Within this perspective, the consideration of epistemological assumptions is most applicable. Epistemology refers to our beliefs regarding knowledge, the way knowledge and understanding are obtained, and challenges the investigator to consider the legitimacy of obtained knowledge is (Klein et al., 1991). There are different classifications that exist for classifying philosophical positions. However, typically there are four worldview philosophies including post-positivism, social constructivism, advocacy/participatory, and pragmatism which define the usage of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods (Creswell, 2009). The post-positivism worldview is also known as positivist research, empirical science, and positivism, and it is related to quantitative research (Creswell, 2009). Furthermore, it is a philosophy in which causes probably determine effects or outcomes where the causes that influence the outcome need to be identified and assessed (Creswell, 2009, p. 71

88 7). Positivism research represents the traditional form, embedded in Information Systems research (Hirschheim, 1985). A social construction worldview is related to interpretive research and it is always considered as an approach to qualitative research, and holds the assumption that individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work (Creswell, 2009, p. 8). Interpretive research assumes that knowledge of reality is socially constructed, interpreted by the researcher rather than discovering it, and thus, it should not be understood separately from the social actors who created that reality (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991). Interpretive research, where individual s views are gathered and tested till a coherent interpretation is reached, often leads to in-depth knowledge about the phenomenon being investigated (Creswell, 2009). The pragmatic worldview is another research philosophy position that arises out of actions, situations, and consequences and opens the door for researchers to use multiple methods, different worldviews, and different assumptions as well as different forms of data collection and analysis (Creswell, p, 10). Pragmatism philosophy does not limit the researcher to a particular method or worldview. Instead, it focuses on the most effective way to investigate a topic (Arnon & Reichel, 2009). Furthermore, it makes it possible for the investigator to utilise a selection of research techniques to comprehend the issue investigated (Brewer & Hunter, 1989). This flexibility in using different research methods and views provides a richer understanding of a research topic (Mingers, 2001). The use of pragmatism philosophy has been considered an appropriate approach for conducting research within the Information Systems discipline (Klein et al., 1991; Galliers, 1992). Due to the nature of PhD research, it is appropriate to utilise a pragmatism paradigm as a theoretical perspective for this exploratory research Research design Utilising the pragmatism worldview, the researcher uses both quantitative and qualitative approaches to understanding the research problem investigated (Creswell, 2009). Qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, p. 2), attempting to make sense of or to interpret, phenomena in terms of the meaning people bring to them (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994, p. 4). Domegan and Fleming (2007) state that due to limited knowledge about the investigated topic; qualitative research is usually used where there is uncertainty 72

89 regarding dimensions and characteristics of the problem to discover and to explore problems around the issue investigated by utilising soft data and obtaining rich data (Domegan & Fleming, 2007). Conducting interviews is the most frequently used method within the qualitative approach; interviews are mainly employed to acquire data about how individual experiences are developed (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). The analysing of data gathered through interviews is to determine themes and patterns to build a comprehensive explanation of the circumstance investigated, in addition to identifying several interpretations of individual experience (Neuman, 2006; Creswell, 2009). Quantitative methods seek to acquire numeric data of individual perspectives and behaviours about evaluating and validating certain theories in different circumstances (Creswell, 2009). Quantitative data are often used to point out elements where worthwhile to carry out deeper qualitative research (Ulmer & Wilson, 2003). The main objectives of the quantitative approach are: to describe, to compare and to attribute causality (Stainback & Stainback, 1988). Quantitative research often makes use of predetermined surveys to gather hard data to statistically examined in order to examine the accumulated data to address the study inquiry (Creswell, 2009). However, both quantitative and qualitative methods have their successes and failures. There are three main distinctions between qualitative and quantitative methods including (a) explanation and understanding as the purpose of the inquiry, (b) the personal and impersonal role of the researcher and, (c) knowledge discovered and knowledge constructed (Stake, 1995, p. 37). Other authors highlight other differences. For example, Lincoln and Guba (1985) state that while a deductive, quantitative study needs a hypothesis before the investigation begins, in a inductive qualitative study, the hypothesis is not required. Greene et al. (1989) highlight the positive aspects of mixed-method investigation. These include 1) Triangulation: the reliability of results acquired via various investigation methods is enhanced, 2) Complementary: the outcomes of a particular technique inform and improve the outcomes extracted from other techniques and vice versa, 3) Development: additional methods may become recognisable, and 4) Initiation and expansion: a wider selection of queries might be shaped, since both techniques present a different point of view. 73

90 A mixed methods strategy integrates the actual strengths associated with both quantitative and qualitative methods (Östlund et al., 2011). It can be used to examine a theory through the process of knowing the diverse elements within the theory and setting up connections amongst variables, as well as to explore the causes associated with these connections (Woolley, 2009). One example is multiphase mixed methods where the researcher can conduct several mixed methods focusing on a collective objective (Creswell, 2013). The multiphase mixed methods approach is useful for evaluation research where these projects may go back and forth between quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies, but they build on each other to address a common program objective (Creswell, p, 228). Due to the capacity of a mixed methods approach and the exploratory nature of this study, this research uses a multiphase mixed methods approach. There are certain implementation issues related to a mixed methods approach that need to be considered including (Morgan, 1998; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007) a) sequence of the data collection and analysis, b) weighting choices: the importance or weight given to quantitative and qualitative methods, c) and mixing choices: when and how mixing occurs. The choices associated with these issues are addressed in the next section. 74

91 4.3 RESEARCH STRATEGY A multiphase mixed methods approach as discussed will be employed in this study. This approach is employed in study which is situated in the Victoria, Australia corresponding with Stake's definition of an instrumental case study, where the focus of the research is upon providing an insight into the issue (1995, p. 3). Further, a mixed methods approach can be implemented using three types of inquiry strategies including sequential mixed methods, concurrent mixed methods, and transformative mixed methods (Creswell, 2009). This study utilises the sequential mixed methods strategy as detailed in the research methods and procedures in figure 4.2. This allows for in-depth understanding of how Gov 2.0 initiatives contribute to public value creation from a citizen s perspective. Initially, the researcher evaluated the maturity of all Victorian local government websites to understand each council s maturity and implementation level of Gov 2.0 initiatives. This evaluation was conducted to select the most appropriate local governments for data collection. After the researcher selected four Victorian local governments for inclusion in this study, the research was conducted in three phases following the sequential exploratory strategy (Creswell (2009). Phase One was semi-structured interviews with local government elected officials and administrators to understand government aims toward public value creation. Phase Two was a survey questionnaire with end users (citizens), to identify public values perceived by citizens from their use of Gov 2.0 initiatives, and to understand the relationship between these values and the main components of public value creation (trust, service quality, and social outcomes). Phase Three was semistructured interviews with citizens to obtain an in-depth understanding of their experience and the value they perceived in using e-government services. 75

92 Figure 4.2: Research methods and procedures Timing choice Timing choice is about whether qualitative and quantitative methods are employed in sequence (one after another) or concurrently (parallel) (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). In the concurrent choice, both qualitative and quantitative data are collected and analysed at the same time. Conversely, in the sequential research, qualitative and quantitative data are collected and analysed in sequence in two phases, where the second phase builds on the result of the previous phase (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). Creswell (2009) suggested that the sequential strategy is characterised by the collection and analysis of quantitative data in the first phase to inform the next qualitative phase. This strategy is useful when unpredicted results emerge from the quantitative phase (Morse, 1991; cited in Creswell, 2009). 76

93 In this research, a sequential strategy is adopted due to the reason stated earlier: both areas (public value and Gov 2.0) are relatively new, and the data that emerges from the initial stages could not be predicted. Furthermore, the main aim of this research is to investigate and assess the public value of Gov 2.0 initiatives in the Victorian local government. The sequential design uses the results gained from each phase, and also helps the researcher to handle any unexpected results that might emerge from the first phase. After the researcher decided on timing, the second issue is weighting each method Weighting choice Weighting is the second issue influencing design results when priority is given to qualitative or quantities method in a given research study (Creswell, 2009). In the sequential design the weight is typically given to qualitative data. However, there are two options for weighting, either to give both methods equal weight or unequal weight (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). The given priority depends on factors such as researcher interest, research audience, and what the researcher wants to emphasise in the research (Creswell, 2009). In this study, the emphasis is placed on qualitative methods. This choice is influenced fundamentally by the study aim, which is to investigate and assess the public value of Gov 2.0 initiatives in the Victorian local government from the citizens point of view. Furthermore, as discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, the development of assessment frameworks for Gov 2.0 from the public value perspective is limited. This limits our knowledge about the relationship between these values and the main components of public value as defined by the literature. In this particular circumstance, qualitative method is more essential in terms of in-depth understanding of the phenomenon and incorporating knowledge towards theoretical foundations. Thus the weighting choice for this research is to give priority to the qualitative method employed in the third phase where citizens will be interviewed through open-ended interviews Mixing choice Mixing choice is the third issue influencing the study design concerning how the quantitative and qualitative data relate to each other. In other words, when and how the qualitative and quantitative data are mixed using the mixed methods approach (Creswell 77

94 & Plano Clark, 2007). Creswell (2009) suggested four types of data mixing: a) mixing the data from both methods possibly combined on one end of the continuum and kept distinct on the other end, or combined in some manner between the two extremes, b) connected the data from the analysis of the first phase is connected to the collection of data in the next phase, c) integrating the data of both methods collected concurrently and combined by transforming the qualitative themes into counts and comparing them with the descriptive quantitative data, and d) embedding the investigator embeds the secondary form of data collected (e.g. quantitative) within the large study method form of data (e.g. qualitative). In this study, the results analysed from the quantitative data (second phase) need to be connected to the qualitative data (first phase) to assist the researcher in planning the interview questionnaire (third phase). This way of mixing data will assist in answering the research questions outlined in section 1.2.1, and also to build knowledge about the investigated phenomenon, gradually basing each stage of work on the previous stages to cover the breadth of knowledge about the topic. The connected type of data mixing will give the researcher the ability to improve the knowledge about the evaluation indicators used in the quantitative phase. Furthermore, it will allow for deeper investigation in the qualitative phase on how citizens perceive the values that shown to have high contributions to public value creation in the qualitative phase. In summary, this section has described the researcher s approach to the research design including timing, weighting, and mixing choices. These choices were informed by the research aim, research questions, and nature of the public value phenomenon in a Gov 2.0 environment. This research is designed to be sequential, connected, qualitativedominant research where the result of each phase informs the next. 4.4 CONTEXT OF THE CASE The Australian government realised the importance of e-government early on. In December 1997 the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard indicated that by 2001 all appropriate services would be delivered electronically (Dunleavy et al., 2006, p. 46). This initiative peaked in 1999 and gained Australia an international reputation as one of the early leaders in the e-government field (Clift, 2002; Accenture, 2003). To sustain its international position, the Australian government released its online strategy in 2000, 78

95 followed by its new service agenda 2006 e-government Strategy (AGIMO, 2006). The new service agenda has identified four strategic goals: 1) meeting users needs, 2) establishing connected service delivery, 3) achieving value for money, and 4) enhancing public sector capability (AGIMO, 2006). The use of the Internet has become a normal daily activity for many people in developed countries and modern societies (Gibson et al., 2010). According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the percentage of Australian households with access to the Internet at home has continued to increase, from 64% in to 79% in Nearly three-quarters of Australian households now have broadband Internet connection (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011). The increase in access to the Internet has created an expectation that more information should be available online. This expectation has been fostered by significant increases in online social network use as reflected in the statistics on social media use. There were more than 845 million monthly active users, for example, on Facebook at the end of December 2011 (Facebook, 2012), about 200 million on Twitter (Twitter blog, 2011), and over 3 billion videos are viewed on YouTube every day (YouTube, 2012). Social media is becoming the main channel for many people to access information. The AGIMO (2012) report Australians use and satisfaction with e-government services shows significant increases in the use of a number of communication technologies compared with previous years, including social media and social networking sites (AGIMO, 2012). Australians uptake of social media and social networking sites increased across all age groups from 36% in 2009 to 47% in 2011 (AGIMO, 2012). The increase in use of social media tools by Australians reflects the popularity and significance of social media (Lipowicz, 2011; Social Media News, 2011; AGIMO, 2012; Cowling, 2012). This increased usage provides the Australian government at all levels with an opportunity to utilise and invest in these tools, where not only citizens can create and form social media networks, but government agencies can build their own online communities too. The capabilities and promises of Web 2.0 technologies, including social media tools, were the main motivation behind the reform of the Australian national innovation system. In order to develop recommendations for improving the innovation system the 79

96 Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research released a report on the Review of the National Innovation System, Venturous Australia Building Strength in Innovation in September 2008 (Cutler, 2008). The report discussed areas such as: human capital, innovation in the public sector, government procurement, and governance issues (Gruen, 2009). The recommendations of this review report impacted directly on the work of the Government 2.0 Taskforce later in The report included recommendations regarding the use of Web 2.0 technologies to improve the innovation system, which has directly enhanced the deliberations of the Government 2.0 Taskforce. The Venturous Australia Building Strength in Innovation report was followed by Australian government administration reform. The reform began when the Australian Prime Minister, the Hon. Kevin Rudd, announced the formation of an advisory group on Reform of Australian Government Administration in September 2009 (Reform of Australian Government Administration, 2009). On 1 October 2009, the advisory group released a discussion paper entitled Reform of Australian Government Administration: Building the World s Best Public Service. The paper provides information on contemporary challenges facing Australia in the 21st century in government administration, information on current government performance, and outlines possible reform directions (Reform of Australian Government Administration, 2009). The advisory group s paper pointed out that group discussion will be framed by the government s stated expectations of the public service (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009), as follows: 1. Having a values-driven culture that retains public trust. 2. Providing high-quality, forward-looking and creative policy advice. 3. Delivering high-quality programs and services that put the citizen first. 4. Providing flexible and agile responses to changing realities and government priorities. 5. Being effective and efficient in all operations. This paper was followed by the Moran review in November 2009, which intended to create the world s best public service mission for the Australian government. According to the AGIMO s (2009) report, the Internet has become a common means for public service take-up in Australia, and it has even become the channel most often used. 80

97 Two in five citizens are contacting the government via the Internet. Furthermore, four in five citizens would choose to contact the government online instead of using the phone, if they were given a choice. This section has provided an overview of the development of e-government in Australia. The following sub-sections will discuss in more detail the development of e-government at federal, state and local government levels E-government development at the federal level Web 2.0 platforms, especially social media tools, are extensively adopted by the public sector around the globe (Noveck, 2009). Not surprisingly Australian federal government agencies have widely embraced these new tools. The AGIMO s (2012) report shows that the federal government realises the significance of the potential advantages of using such tools. The report also shows that federal government agencies have widely embraced Web 2.0 and social media tools, especially Twitter, Facebook, and RSS. Almost one hundred Australian federal agencies already have official Twitter accounts including the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), around fifty agencies have Facebook pages, and about 364 use news feeds via RSS. Consequently, Australian citizens use of social networking sites to contact all tiers of government increased from 36% in 2009 to 47% in This growth is mainly driven by citizens who are under 55 years of age. More than half of all Australians interact with government using a variety of technologies. Gov 2.0 offer government new opportunities to improve communication between public service delivery agencies and public policy and service planning areas (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009). The Australian government reacted to this increased uptake of new technologies in its Government 2.0 Taskforce report in The Australian Government 2.0 Taskforce report by Gruen (2009) distils the key theme of Government 2.0 in one word Engage, stressing the need and the importance of engagement of public agencies and public servants with citizens using the tools and capabilities of collaborative Web 2.0. As shown in figure 4.3 the Gov 2.0 Taskforce agenda mainly involve three pillars: Leadership, policy and governance to achieve necessary shifts in public sector culture and practice. 1) Leadership, policy and governance to achieve necessary shifts in public sector culture and practice. 81

98 2) The application of Web 2.0 collaborative tools and practices to the business of government. 3) Open access to public sector information (PSI). Figure 4.3: Three aspects of Australian Government 2.0 (Government 2.0 Taskforce) In its Leadership pillar, the report argued that the public figures need to form or join existing online communities to improve government service delivery, policy, and regulation and help government become more informed, responsive, innovative, and citizen centric. The report also pointed out the need to open public sector information to citizens and businesses as an invitation to Australians to engage with government, innovate, and for generate public value. However, the report also recognises that it is necessary to change current public service principles of hierarchical mechanism and direction in order to take advantage of Gov 2.0. In the engagement pillar of the use of Web 2.0 as collaborative tools, the Australian Gov 2.0 Taskforce report pointed out that the use of these new technologies and approaches as a new method to serve and interact with citizens can enhance government openness, accountability, responsiveness, and efficiency. Furthermore, it will close the gap between government and citizens through a more collaborative relationship, resulting in social and economic benefits. Government 2.0 provides public servants with a great opportunity to share and develop their expertise through a network of knowledge with other professionals, and engage and respond to the community. Public servants and citizens can work together to solve complex policy and service delivery issues. The taskforce encourages the Australian public sector to allow their public servants and staff to engage with their customers, citizens, and communities of interest using Gov 2.0 platforms (Gruen, 2009). 82

99 The third pillar, Open access to public sector information, asserts that Australian public information must be truly open and if not, there are good reasons to the contrary. This means that by default public information should be: a) free, b) based on open standards, c) easily discoverable, d) understandable, e) machine-readable, and f) freely reusable and transformable. Both the Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration and the Management Advisory Committee project on Advancing Innovation in the public sector considered Government 2.0 as a key to the delivery of government reforms such as promoting innovation, and making the Australian government public service world s best. Also, the Government 2.0 Taskforce report stated that the implementation of government 2.0 in Australian government can: a) enhance democracy, b) improve service quality, responsiveness, agility, and efficiency, c) cultivate and harness the enthusiasm of citizens, d) free the huge social and economic value of information and content held by government, e) become a source of innovation, and f) make government policies and services more responsive to citizens needs and concerns. For the Australian government, Gov 2.0 is the fundamental factor to achieve substantial national aims (Gruen, 2009) in the national innovation agenda, especially towards a more innovative public sector; in the reform of Australian Government Administration to become world s best public service; and for the service delivery agenda within the Department of Human Services. The taskforce also proposed that its recommendations and principles should be implemented at all levels of Australian government (federal, state, and local) to make the most of its massive National Broadband Network (NBN) investment. Engaging with citizens using new technologies and approaches leads to new guidelines and regulations. The Australian Public Service Commission is responsible for providing guidance to Australian public sector agencies (employees rights and obligations in making public comments). Following the temporary protocols for online media participation released in 2008, in November 2009, the Commission released the Circular 2009/6: Protocols for online media participation. The Circular provided guidance to Australian public sector agencies (for employees participating in online media), recognising opportunities and potential benefits that Web 2.0 offers for public servants to open up government to citizens and communities of interest. 83

100 However, in January 2012 the Commission released new guidelines for Australian public sector employees (Circular 2012/1) with significant amendments to Australian Public Sector Values and Code of Conduct in Practice (Australian Public Service Commission, 2012) E-government development at state and local levels in Victoria At state level, Victoria is a good example of the development of e-government in Australia. The Victorian government was one of the first to adopt e-government alongside federal initiatives in the Australian Tax Office, Centrelink and the Health Insurance Commission (Dunleavy et al., 2008). In Victoria, the responsibility for ICTs was assigned to Multimedia Victoria (MMV). In its report issued by the Department of Innovation, the Victorian government highlighted Web 2.0 as a tool that gives a 21st century spin on Abraham Lincoln's adage: Government of the people, by the people for the people (Department of Innovation, 2009, ph. 26). Local governments are a vital part of government and their significance is that they are seen as the tier of government that is closest to the people. Governments can use Web 2.0 applications to: enhance democratic processes and strengthen civil society; working from the bottom up via engagement of stakeholders through open consultations; tailoring services to meet their needs; share their interests and experiences; and provide opportunities to engage them in policy design and implementation (VIC egovernment Resource Centre, 2011). Even though local government is the third tier of government, it is considered to be a separate entity that resembles federal or state government in many ways, with the exception that it carries out government activities applicable to a smaller, local area (Department of Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2014). To leverage the opportunities of Web 2.0 in transparent government, strengthen citizen participation, and build capability, the Victorian government introduced its Government 2.0 Action Plan. The Victorian Government 2.0 Action Plan offers an organised approach to the use of Web 2.0 applications and tools such as wikis, blogs, and social networking sites. The plan focuses on four main areas (VIC egovernment Resource Centre, 2010): 1) driving adoption of Web 2.0 in the Victorian public sector (leadership), 2) engaging communities and citizens (participation), 3) opening up government (transparency), and 4) building capability (performance). These areas contain 14 initiatives aiming at 84

101 engaging and empowering citizens, making government more transparent, and improving government capability. The first key area (leadership) is about the establishment of a taskforce to guide the implementation process and provide participation and collaboration forums, started with the implementation of a Gov 2.0 projects in every public sector department by the end of June This area also includes the implementation of new Victorian government privacy legislation and records that address issues related to how public servants interact with social media. The second key area (participation), seeks to involve citizens and communities to construct more targeted and effective government policies and services by implementing new initiatives using the latest Web 2.0 tools (VIC egovernment Resource Centre, 2010) including: Have Your Say (an online consultation website about government programs and services); Public Records 2.0 (an online space to allow community participation access to state public records); Regulatory Government Wiki (an online information repository to improve the operational performance of regulators); and Citizens Centric Services (involving the community in service delivery and policy development). The third key area (opening up government) includes three significant initiatives: a) Victorian Public Sector Hack Days (an event where the developers of public sector websites and people with ideas gather to build applications using Victorian public sector data), b) data.vic.au (an online access point for Victorian public sector information) and, c) Information Management Framework (with standards and measures for sharing data). The Victorian government expects that the release of public sector information and primary data to researchers, government website developers and designers, and to creative people for re-use will drive innovation, new services, and bring many significant social and economic benefits. The fourth main area (building capability) is about managing the risks associated with social media and the development of resources and toolkits to support the uptake of new 85

102 technologies in the public sector, by using Web 2.0 tools for consultations and best practice. Following the above discussion of the development of e-government in three tiers of Australian government, the next section will give an overview of the maturity level of these developments Current situation of Australian e-government maturity Several Australian public organisations are already well recognised internationally for their implementation of Gov 2.0 approaches, for example, the Government Information Licensing Framework (GILF) project, a collaborative project between the Queensland Government and Queensland University of Technology Law Faculty (QUT). This project is acknowledged globally as a frontrunner in the area of what suggested and validated the use of Creative Commons (CC) licences to support sharing of Public Sector Information (PSI). Besides, the Australian Government s Spatial Data Access and Pricing Policy 2001, the Australian Bureau of Statistics were known for granting permission for others to freely use and remix the data they hold. The National Library of Australia (NLA), National Archives of Australia (NAA), the National Museum of Australia (NMA) and Sydney s Powerhouse Museum were the first public agencies that engaged with citizens online by allowing them to contribute their time and content (Gruen, 2009). Furthermore, there are some Government 2.0 initiatives at state and local levels such as: smart phone Apps (e.g. Snap Send Solve), comprehensive council social networking strategies (e.g. Mosman Council), crowdsourcing photos and stories (e.g. Mosman Memories of My Street), council online TV (e.g. Frankston City Council TV). To sum up, the United Nations (2012) E-Government Survey 2012 report E- Government for the People reflects and summarises the actual position and situation of the development of e-government in Australia. The report highlighted that the top twenty countries ranked in this report were developed countries with high income economies. The report shows that Australia continues to be the leader in the Oceania region and is considered one of the global leaders in e-government development, ranked 12th globally in the e-government development index. In terms of online service delivery where the report measures how much services government deliver online, ranked Australia 9th globally. The citizen inclusion and e-participation indicator ranked Australia in 8th position. Providing citizens with draft regulations in a downloadable 86

103 format and seeking their suggestions and comments was the common public consultation method for the Australian government. Australia is leading countries that rank high in multichannel service delivery such as Bahrain, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Qatar, the Republic of Korea, etc. These countries provide services on numerous channels, for instance traditional ones supported by intermediaries, free access to public services through kiosks or WiFi, and mobile-based channels such as mobile Web or applications. The United Nations E-Government Survey 2012 shows that the Australian Government has been one of the early adopters of a one-stop portal. The government portal provides citizens various interactive services ranging from birth certificates to registering on the electoral roll. Its services can be accessed in three different ways: service type (paying a bill, applying for a grant); life event (giving birth); or location (of government agency or department). The Australian national portal ( is a good example of Australia e-participation. This portal provides several features that allow citizens to engage and interact with the Commonwealth in the policy making process. The Have Your Say section on the main portal home page is linked to different consultation segments where citizens can provide their suggestions and notes to the particular ministry. This public consultation section contains blogs and Twitter pages that provide links to several government blogs, pages and Twitter accounts. Each ministry also provides citizens with feedback and outcomes of previous online consultations (United Nations, 2012). The recent United Nations e-government 2014 survey report E-Government for the Future We Want shows that Australia has developed from 12th to 2nd position in the global E-Government Development Index (United Nations, 2014). This is due to Australia s international high ranking and its advances in the e-government field, especially in areas such as the maturity of online services delivery, the implementation and use of Web 2.0 technologies, and government intent and efforts to create public value for citizens. The researcher has found that Australia, particularly Victoria, is an appropriate place to conduct such research. All these factors combined can help the researcher conducting the research in suitable environments. 87

104 4.5 SAMPLE SELECTION With respect to the research aim, the researcher needs to ensure that participants are information rich (Patton, 2002). Therefore, these participants can provide maximum insights into the research inquiry (Frankel & Devers, 2000) from both local government officials and citizens. As previously stated, the research aim of this study is to investigate and assess the public value of Gov 2.0 initiatives in Victorian local government. However, there are no available studies or literature about the maturity levels of Victorian local governments that assist the researcher in selecting appropriate local governments for data collection. This research is linked to the selection of information rich participants (Patton, 2002) and the triangulation strategy of data collection (Decrop, 1999). The absence of any reliable study about the maturity levels of local government indicates the challenge faced in selecting an adequate sample for this study that effectively represents Gov 2.0 implementers and users in Victoria, Australia. In order to overcome these challenges, the researcher conducted a comprehensive evaluation. In Australia the Commonwealth has three levels of government: the federal government based in Canberra; six states and territories each with their own parliament; and government agencies and local government (councils). The state of Victoria is divided into metropolitan and rural regions with 5.8 million (Department of Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2014). There are 79 local government areas (councils), and 31 of these areas make up the Melbourne metropolitan region. Melbourne, the capital of Victoria, is home to around 70% of all Victorians (Department of Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure, 2014). The rural region, containing 38 local government areas, hosts around 30% of Victorians. A comprehensive analysis was conducted for all Victorian local government websites to evaluate the presence of social media tools. This process empirically examined the Gov 2.0 maturity level of Victorian local government. The main objective of this process is to provide the researcher with a clear picture of the maturity of Gov 2.0 in Victorian local governments and to select the appropriate Councils based on the maturity level achieved including their implementation level of Gov 2.0 initiatives. The list of Victorian local governments was based on council listings and maps provided by the Department of Planning and Community 88

105 Development (DOPCD) website ( A website analysis method is used in this investigation. Such analysis is widely used in e-government research to examine services, features and functions of government websites (West, 2004). Website investigations focused on the availability of social media tools. Evaluations were performed from 1 March 2010 to mid-july 2011 on all Victorian council websites. To evaluate these websites, the researcher compiled a table of social media tools including Twitter, Facebook, RSS, YouTube, Flicker and RSS. These tools scored 1 if they appeared on the local government website and 0 if not. The evaluation process provided the researcher with a clear picture as to how mature Victorian local councils Gov 2.0 are. This helped the researcher to target local governments that had approved implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives. Four local governments were selected from the first six highly ranked councils for data collection. 4.6 IMPLEMENTATION OF SEQUENTIAL MIXED METHODS After four Victorian local governments were selected for inclusion in this study, the research was conducted in three phases following the sequential exploratory strategy suggested by Creswell (2009) and depicted in figure 4.4. Figure 4.4: Sequential multiphase mixed methods design Phase 1: Interviews with local government elected officials and administrators Interviews were the key source of data collection. Once a full appreciation of Victorian local government websites has been gained, and the researcher had obtained a clear picture about the maturity level of Gov 2.0 initiatives implemented by Victorian local government, Phase 1 began. This phase is qualitative in nature, and the data were collected through face-to-face semi-structured interviews with local government elected 89

106 officials and administrators (including mayors, councillors, executives, coordinators, and operators). The aims of this phase were to extend knowledge of local government motivations, visions, and goals to provide a better understanding of government aims toward public value creation. Data collection involved selecting individual participants from four different local governments. Within each council the researcher selected officials who were involved in e-government adoption processes from different government levels (decisional, managerial, executive, and operational). Twenty participants were interviewed. Data collection from such diverse levels contributed to more knowledgeable conclusions (Scheepers & Scheepers, 2003). The interview questions are attached (see Appendix D). Phase 2: Survey questionnaire with end users (citizens) Data collection during this phase was conducted by using the online survey questionnaire. The themes suggested by public value literature and those identified from Phase 1 interviews have been used as input for the development of the survey questionnaire. Distribution of the survey questionnaire was through local government websites and social media tools. The surveys were advertised on council websites and through social media to potential participants. The survey questionnaire was used with the sole purpose to gather as much information as possible with regards to citizens perceptions about the values they perceive from their use of Gov 2.0 services. Participants are citizens who use targeted local government e-services. Local governments involved in this research agreed to invite end users to participate in surveys using an invitation statement placed on their website home page and sent to their residents using council social media tools linked to the surveys (see Appendix E). However, informed consent to participate further in the interviews (Phase 3) was attached to the survey questionnaire. Phase 3: Interviews with end users (citizens) The final phase of this study was semi-structured interviews with citizens who use local government Gov 2.0 services. This phase aims to understand in-depth the public value phenomena from the citizens point of view, and how they perceive and evaluate Gov 2.0 services. Involving the same participants in both quantitative and qualitative phases is recommended by Creswell and Plano Clark (2011). The participants expressed their interest to participate in further interviews in their survey questionnaire reply. Selecting 90

107 participants from the same citizens who participated in the quantitative phase is very beneficial for relating and comparing findings from both phases (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Following the previous procedures helped the researcher to validate quantitative findings and carry out in-depth interviews to explore the public value of Gov 2.0 initiatives. Initial results obtained from the survey questionnaire were used to develop interview questions (see Appendix H). Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were carried out with informants consent. In this phase, individuals were interviewed about their perceptions and experiences of Gov 2.0 usage. In total, 19 participants (citizens who use local government Gov 2.0 initiatives) were interviewed. In general, the interviews took between 45 minutes to an hour and they were recorded with the participants permission and anonymity was preserved in publication. 4.7 DATA ANALYSIS As described in section 4.6, this research was conducted in three phases following the sequential exploratory strategy. The first phase s data was collected through interviews with local government elected officials and administrators. The second phase s data was collected using the online survey questionnaire with end users (citizens), and the third phase s data was collected using interviews with citizens who use local government Gov 2.0 services. The analysis of the first phase s data followed the method outlined by Strauss and Corbin (1990) to code the qualitative data including open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. The analysis of the second phase s quantitative data used Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) to test and validate hypothesises. The SEM analysis was conducted using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version 21 and the Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS). The analysis of the third phase s interview data used theory-driven analysis to develop the codes and themes from words, meanings, and expressions found in the interviews transcripts. Again, the three stages of coding by Strauss and Corbin (1990) was followed. Each phase s data analysis procedures will be discussed in detail in chapters 5:7 (Phase 1 in chapter 5 section 5.3, Phase 2 in chapter 6 section 6.4, and Phase 3 chapter 7 in section 7.3). 91

108 4.8 RESEARCH RELIABILITY Research reliability means that other investigators (or even the same study at another time utilising the same methods) can acquire the same results as those from previous research (Johnson et al., 2006). Having the correct identification, and complete explanation of the methods employed to gather and analyse data are important factors for replicating research (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982). As described earlier (see sections 4.2 and 4.3), the research outlined the methods utilised in this study, and how the research developed with regard to timing, weighting, and mixing selections, which are reported and described clearly. Within the quantitative phase, the indicators used to assess the public value and its components were discussed in section 3.2. While the process of sampling selection was discussed in section 4.5, survey development procedures, data collection and analysis utilised in the quantitative phase are explained in more detail in sections 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 in Chapter 6. For qualitative phases, the interview strategies and the data analysis procedures are discussed in Chapters 5 and 7. The audio recording of interviews can efficiently enhance the quality of data and thus improve the reliability of the qualitative study (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982). In the qualitative phases, all 39 interviews were audiorecorded by the researcher with the participants permission and transcribed. The researcher also paid considerable attention to minimising errors and bias by playing a neutral role (Creswell, 2009) plus employing main questions, followed by subquestions. Consistent coding is an important and useful factor to enhance reliability in qualitative research (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982; Seale, 1999). Therefore, the researcher utilises a standardised coding technique to add to the reliability of the qualitative phases during the data analysis process, discussed in more detail in section

109 4.9 RESEARCH VALIDITY Creswell and Clark (2010) define the validity of mixed methods research as the use of suitable strategies to deal with potential issues in data collection and analysis, as well as combining results to draw conclusions. Creswell and Clark (2010) determined some possible threats that can influence validity in mixed methods research: a) bias between one data collection and another, b) acquiring non-comparable results, c) gathering data inappropriately from participants, d) utilising unsuitable techniques to compare findings, e) investigator s bias for the results of one of the methods, and f) insufficient trustworthiness of data analysis. This study has utilised a considerable number of procedures to handle these types of validity risks. Firstly, selecting local governments through comprehensive sampling procedures discussed earlier allow the researcher to access the most appropriate individuals for all research phases (Silverman, 2001). For example, the selection of highly ranked local governments in terms of the use of social media tools to implement the study allows for selecting the right sample for interviews in Phase 1. In Phases 2 and 3 sample selection involves the relevant residents who use these particular local government websites and social media, especially given the researcher has distributed online surveys on websites and social media of the four targeted local governments. Secondly, this research was conducted across four different local governments in Victoria. These local governments have similar online services and features, which are helpful in terms of improving generalisability of qualitative studies (Bryman, 2003). Thirdly, the collection of data on the same topic through multiple sources and participants can improve research validity (Parry, 1998). In this thesis, the researcher attempts to investigate and assess the phenomenon of public value using multiphase and methods, from different locations in Victoria. The research also conducted a comprehensive website and social media use analysis by all Victorian local governments to select the most appropriate local governments for data collection, and then targeted the government officials and administrators within these local governments who are involved in the implementation and daily service delivery. In this research, 39 interviews were conducted and around 213 surveys were completed in total. 93

110 4.10 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS Ethics approval for this study was granted by the Swinburne University Higher Research Committee (SUHREC) under the reference number 2011/105 (see appendix I) in three separate phases which began on 22 June 2011 and ended on 31 March All research activity was undertaken under the auspices of Swinburne University and conformed to Swinburne and external regulatory standards, including the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and with respect to secure data use, retention and disposal. Consent letters were attained from all councils involved in this study, and all individuals interviewed by the researcher. Interviews were carried out at a mutually accepted public location. Ethics related documents (ethics approval, invitation letters, consent forms, and explanatory statements) are attached in the appendixes CHAPTER SUMMARY This chapter has outlined the research philosophy, approaches, research methodology and methods, and the design used in the study, including procedures of timing, weighting, and mixing choices, data collection and analysis methods, and data validity and reliability issues. The research design for this study was a case study that was analysed largely through adopting a multiphase mixed methods approach. Further, several stages and phases were elaborated in this study. The sampling procedures were also discussed including the justifications of conducting this research in different local governments in Victoria, Australia. 94

111 Chapter 5: Interviews with Elected Officials and Administrators (Phase 1) 5.1 INTRODUCTION In Chapters 2 and 3, public values that the government may generate among citizens through the implementation and use of Gov 2.0 initiatives were identified. After identifying potential values to be examined and building the theoretical framework for evaluation, Phase 1 (interviewing local government elected officials and administrators) was implemented. The four selected local governments (councils) provide the most advanced Gov 2.0 services, which are similar across these councils. As previously mentioned, they are among the six highest ranked councils in Victoria (see section 4.5). The objective of Phase 1 is to extend knowledge about local government missions, visions, and goals to provide the researcher with a better understanding of government aims toward public value creation. Thus, this chapter illustrates the results of qualitative exploration based on interviews with relevant participants who answered the first research question: What aims do government officials have in implementing Gov 2.0 initiatives to create public value? In this phase, the researcher investigated the following: (a) What are the main motivations behind the implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives? (b) Are local governments aiming to create public value as it has been identified in the study framework? (c) If local governments are aiming to create public value, what values do they aim to create? Thus semi-structured interviews were used to discover government objectives in creating public value through employing real-life situations. While this chapter (Phase 1) investigates government aims toward public value creation, the other later two chapters (Phase 2 in Chapter 6 and Phase 3 in Chapter 7) are examining the citizens perceptions of public value created through Gov 2.0 initiatives. Therefore, this chapter is considered an entity in itself by discussing its findings separately. The outcomes of this chapter will be used to inform Phases 2 and 3 in the discussion in Chapter 8. 95

112 This chapter is structured as follows: section 5.2 reports on the data collection procedures. This is followed by illustration and discussion of data analysis in section 5.3. Sections 5.4 and 5.5 provide the findings from Phase 1 interviews with public officials and administrators. Section 5.6 discusses the results obtained followed by the chapter summary. 5.2 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES Conducting interviews is one method of data collection (Yin, 2003). Interviews are helpful for in-depth understanding of the meanings that participants attach to their answers (Arksey & Knight, 1999). This phase s interview questions were designed to be semi-structured interviews. The interview procedures follow the interview instruments recommended by Bryman (2004), as discussed in the following sub-sections Targeting potential interviewees Rubin and Rubin (2005, p. 64) argue interviewees should be experienced and knowledgeable in the area you are interviewing about. The researcher considered the importance of choosing the person who is in the relevant position for this research inquiry within the examined organisation. Table 5.1 shows the number of participants within codes assigned to each government level. Table 5.1: Participants codes at each government level Participants Role Number of Participants Participants Code No Decisional level 7 2, 5, 8, 9,10, 19, 20 Managerial level 4 1, 12, 14, 16 Executive level 3 3, 7, and 17 Operational level 6 4, 6, 11, 13, 15, 18 Data collection from diverse levels contributes to more informed conclusions from the study (Scheepers & Scheepers, 2003). Within each of the four councils involved, the researcher selected officials who were involved in Gov 2.0 implementation plus daily operating processes from different government levels (decisional, managerial, executive, and operational). Twenty participants were interviewed face-to-face as detailed in table 5.2. Interviews were conducted with elected officials and administrators (including mayors, councillors, executives, coordinators, and operators). 96

113 Table 5.2: Participants codes, characteristics and roles Participant Code Position Level Council 1 Manager Managerial C 2 Councillor Decisional C 3 Executive Executive C 4 Web Coordinator Operational C 5 Councillor Decisional C 6 Communications Coordinator Operational A 7 Director Corporate Services Executive C 8 Mayor Decisional C 9 Councillor Decisional D 10 Mayor Decisional D 11 Communications Adviser Operational D 12 Manager Managerial D 13 Information Services Operational B 14 Manager Managerial B 15 Communications Coordinator Operational B 16 Manager Information Technology Managerial A 17 Executive Manager Executive A 18 Team Leader ecommunications Operational A 19 Councillor Decisional A 20 Councillor Decisional A The selected interviewees were considered to be those who have a comprehensive knowledge about council strategies, policies, and online services. They have also been involved in various elements of the implementation and adoption process of Gov 2.0 in their respective councils. Likewise, they are most likely to be involved in strategic decisions on these aspects and can provide the richest and most precise answers to this phase s inquiry Designing interview questionnaire The interview questionnaire was designed to answer the first research question: What aims do government officials have in implementing Gov 2.0 initiatives to create public value? A semi-structured interview questions was designed to cover all sub-topics proposed in the framework as a potential contributor to public value creation of Gov 2.0. The interview questions functions as a framework to ensure the researcher will gain the most comprehensive and detailed answers from interviewees as proposed by Arksey and Knight (1999). The interview questions (see Appendix D) was asked for each interviewee, and worked as a reminder of the main research concentration areas, and it was used flexibly. Likewise, it was designed to motivate interviewees to reconstruct their experience and 97

114 to explore their meaning (Seidman, p, 76). It is worthwhile to point out that the interview questions included some questions which are not in the focus of this research, but they were included to help the researcher understand the environments surrounding the operational and implementation process in Victorian local government Gaining access to interviewees After the researcher obtained consent from interviewees invited to participate in the study, and received ethics approval from Swinburne University Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC) to conduct the study, the researcher began collecting contact details from council websites and contacting potential participants as discussed in section These participants were invited to participate in interviews mainly through s with an invitation to participate letter attached (see Appendix A) and explanatory statement (see Appendix B). The attachments included a brief explanation about the researcher s background, the research project, possible benefits of conducting the study, terms of involvement and participants rights and confidentiality. Full contact details for the researcher, the project supervisors and Swinburne s Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC) were also attached to the explanatory statement. Some interviews were arranged through council officials (e.g. Media and Communications Coordinators) after the researcher had provided them with a list of names and positions of targeted interviewees. Once the researcher received positive feedback from a potential interviewee indicating her/his willingness to be involved in the interviews, the research questions (Appendix A) was sent to them prior to interview. Interviewee personal information confidentiality was reemphasising to the interviewee prior to the interview to encourage the participants to reflect on their knowledge and experience of the Council s implementation of Gov 2.0. Also, all participants were asked to complete and sign the consent form prior to interview as shown in Appendix C Conducting interviews Twenty face-to-face interviews were conducted in total with elected officials and administrators from local governments at different levels and positions as described earlier in section 5.2. Generally, the interviews took between 45 minutes to an hour and 98

115 all were audio recorded with the participant s permission; the interviews were carried out at mutually accepted locations including Council offices, Council libraries or cafés. The researcher designed and conducted the interviews starting with preparations, an introduction, asking the interview questions, concluding the interview and asking interviewees for any further information they might want to add. This practice helped the researcher to expand questions as suggested by Rubin and Rubin (2005) including main questions, follow-up questions, and probing questions. The semi-structured questions encouraged the interviewees to talk about their experience and views and aims regarding the implementation of Gov 2.0. The main questions were asked with followup questions for obtaining in-depth and more detailed answers, elaborating main themes. In some cases, when the researcher felt the participant s answer was too short or incomplete, probing questions were asked (Rubin and Rubin (2005) to get the full story. In general, the procedures of data collection were effective as this resulted in a substantial amount of new data about local governments views towards public value creation through the implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives. The next section will address data analyses. 5.3 DATA ANALYSES In order to ensure familiarity with the data, the researcher began data analysis initially by familiarising himself with the data. The researcher transcribed interviews immediately after they had been conducted. The notes taken were also read many times after each interview. This process helped the researcher to recall the ideas while the interview was still fresh in his mind, revise questionnaire and reformulate follow-up questions, especially in the first interview. After several interviews had been conducted, the researcher reaches the reflection stage including comparing the data, contrasting and linking it with the literature and proposed theoretical framework. Based on Strauss and Corbin (1998), qualitative data analysis consists of three steps in coding: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. The early learning process developed through familiarisation and reflection stages helped the researcher to improve constant comparison (Glaser, 1992) and subsequently the coding process (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Likewise, recorded notes from the researcher s initial thoughts, 99

116 similarities and differences, and the theoretical framework were used together throughout the course of data analysis. In order to achieve the previously stated research objectives, the researcher investigated and read each interview transcript line-by-line. In the open coding process, the key public value areas (public trust, service quality, and social outcomes) and the values identified in the study framework were traced, highlighted, and labelled where located in interview transcripts. Codes were attached to the notes taken during interviewing, familiarization, and reflection stages. In the Axial coding process, the researcher illustrated the participants view of relationships between key public value areas and values (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). These values and their relationship suggested by the theoretical framework of this research study were very helpful in the coding process. The following sections of this chapter will present the findings from Phase

117 5.4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AIMS TOWARD PUBLIC VALUE CREATION It is important to understand the full picture on how Victorian local governments think and work towards the creation of public value. Understanding government aims and views will inform and facilitate the later study phases (phase 2 and 3) that evaluate citizens perceptions of public values. In order to get a comprehensive answer on whether Victorian local governments are aiming to create public value, the researcher designed the interview questions to include three questions investigating: a) local governments motivations behind the implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives, b) strategies implemented for using Gov 2.0 initiatives, and c) how governments are evaluating their efforts in implementing and using these initiatives. Victorian governments views on these areas are illustrated in the next three sub-sections Motivations behind the implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives Identifying the motivations behind local government implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives is the first area to be investigated. In their responses to the researcher s question about whether they think it is important to use social media to communicate and serve their residents, and if so, why it is important, public officials and administrators agreed about the importance of serving and communicating with citizens using Web 2.0 technologies, mainly social media tools. However, while all participants agreed on the importance of using these new technologies, some of them emphasised the uncertainty of the benefits of using such technologies saying, for example, the answer is yes, but we re still in the space at the moment of working out how beneficial it can, or can t be (P 3). Moreover, the term value was expressed in some conflicting answers when interviewees related it to their realisation of the value of using new technologies. For example, P 5 stated that the value of using these new technologies are realised among council officials, mainly councillors, affirming a lot of people [council officials and administrators] see the value. Councillors are the ones that are pushing for it (P 5). Another participant expressed a lack of understanding the value that could be delivered through these tools, saying we see examples of some businesses getting great value from them, but I do wonder about the cost-benefit trade-off (P 7). 101

118 Furthermore, participants expressed a considerable number of factors motivating them to support the implementation and use of Web 2.0 technologies. However, participants have not mentioned the term public value in all interviews conducted. Yet, they have mentioned value occasionally. P 4 thought that by communicating and delivering services to residents without requiring them to drive to the council offices is a value in itself, saying yeah, to not have to come in to see us, or to have to speak to someone. That s definitely value for them (P 4). P 7 considers providing citizens with a greater way to access council services by integrating social media tools with existing council e- services is a way of adding value: Yes. What we ve learnt is that while we ve improved the systems, where you really add value is through the integration, and then opening up the accessibility. Accessibility is not just the Web (P 7). P 8 thinks that by saving council residents time when waiting in a telephone queue (by using e-services including social media tools) is valued by residents because they are not so frustrated. P 8 remarked: I think they value the fact that they don t have to get in a telephone queue line. They value the fact that they don t have to get those answering things while they re waiting in a queue, those messages about council services Yes, yes, it s not as frustrating as the telephone. (P 8) Participants highlighted a number of motivators that were behind their local governments decisions for implementing Gov 2.0 initiatives to serve and communicate with residents. These motivators were grouped into meeting expectations, communication, convenience, engagement, social, usefulness, and openness, as illustrated and summarised in table

119 Table 5.3: Victorian local government motivations behind the implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives Groups Motivations Participants views To meet citizens expectations 1. Meeting expectations As a response to the pressure to follow the other councils who implemented these tools 2. Communication The preferred method of communication between residents Another avenue of communication Seen as a quick means of communication, especially during the consultation process 3. Convenience To provide them with a more convenient means of service 4. Engagement To find out what residents think about their council To be a part of residents engagement in social media, and to obtain residents feedback A way of accessing a new proportion of residents, mainly youth It is vital because it is expected. I think they expect the services to be provided online; they expect their local council to have a website they engage with to access information, and make some transactions; yes, it is a bit about expectation (P 6) I do acknowledge that there is a pressure that people feel to keep up, and I think we probably succumb to that sometimes, and I know our CEO and councillors have mentioned this at times. All the other Councils are doing it so we should too (P 15) Well, the answer to that is yes because that s also the preferred style for a lot of other people. So, therefore, why wouldn t you? (P 10) Yes, because it s another avenue to communicate with residents. Although some people won't access the website, they will access social media It s very important for things like disasters; that s very, very important, if there s a major disaster here (P 13) Yeah, I think it s a lot quicker, and I think it s very successful in mobilising people very quickly. I think it would be a successful thing to do in regards to consultations. (P 2) It is important to understand your community and your residents, and offer them communication and business channels that suit their needs (P 17) Yeah, I think it is [important] I think that we need to be aware of what people are saying about us in those places (P 11) Yes, and I think our residents are already on social media; they are already talking to each other about us on social media, it is important that we become a part of that conversation, and we use it as a way to communicate to our residents and if we can deliver services through that way as well as obtain feedback, all that sort of stuff (P 12) I do, I do. I think it s a way of accessing other people that may not otherwise access our services. (P 8) It is vital... youth and those people who are moving into the area for the first time need to be able to communicate with them, they are used to electronic communication and e-commerce and therefore if we do not adapt we will not be able to reach those people who are important to our community (P 20) 103

120 Table 5.3 continued Groups Motivations Participants views 5. Social To humanise the council It s a good opportunity for us to get in touch with people and hear what people are saying about us, but also it s an opportunity to I guess, humanise us a bit as the organisation or Council or (P 11) 6. Usefulness To be used in disasters It s very important for things like disasters; that s very, very important, if there s a major disaster here (P 13) It is useful targeting communication tools to target specific groups It is a flexible way of communication, It is direct, It is adaptable, It allows for remote communication, It is useful than the traditional means of communication, and It served as a written way of communication Yeah, definitely. We re finding that social media has been great for targeting those specific markets...we can use these social media sites to target the specific groups that that information is actually relevant to, obviously the youth. (P 4) Yes, it is very important It is a flexible mode of communication and a very direct mode of communication that also is very adaptable to changing work trends and changing behavioural trends. What social media does is narrow the miles, and allows remote conversations. It also is a lot more [More] useful than old communications, such as using the telephone for engagement, because it serves as a written record, it provides written records of communication between residents. (P 9) 7. Openness It makes council more transparent I think it s really important. I think good governance is about transparency and so I think it s important that we have a presence online because that s how some of our residents, particularly rate payers, communicate with us. I think it s just an expected extension now of the work that we do. It s very important that we provide a presence there. (P 15) 104

121 5.4.2 Strategies implemented Finding out whether the council has implemented e-service strategy or a social media strategy. And what it contains. Is the second area investigated to clarify the local governments aims toward public value creation? The participants responses indicate that none of the councils implemented a clear social media strategy. For instance, one participant indicated that his Council had not implemented a strategy that includes Web 2.0 or social media tools, but a broader IT strategy, as P 11 explained: We have an online communications strategy and I guess the counterpoint to that is also the IT strategy, although the IT strategy is very much infrastructure based we ve got a small one, but not necessarily anything large at the moment. (P 11) However, the council is taking initial steps toward developing new strategies including the use of social media. P 11 also mentioned: We re actually having our first big brainstorming meeting next week so that we can develop a long-term plan for our social media and digital marketing generally, like thinking about things. (P 11) Other council participants answers clearly show that their councils are still not sure about what to include in their development policies and strategies, as P 16 answered: We have, but we re still not sure what we re going to do. It s still a little bit grey. We could do better and you talking about it now makes me think I should have gone and done more (P 16). Similarly, P 18 answered: At the moment we have a policy in development I think to some degree also organisationally we ve still got some policies and procedures to build up around it. So until they're in place a bit more, clearly we re a little bit weary of being too overboard and too directly interacting with community (P 18). Again, where participants acknowledged the implementation of an e-services approach by council, they linked this approach to broader council services strategies that do not cover new technologies. Furthermore, P 13 even highlighted that the aim of implementing this strategy is not clear, as expressed in the answer to the previous question: Yes, we ve got a template from the MAV, Municipal Association of Victoria, which is all local governments and we modified that to suit our needs. So the question 105

122 again, what was the aim of it? (P 13). P 14 does not consider what they already have as a proper e-service strategy: As I said, probably our effort s have been mostly focused on the Web development cycle which is part of the e-services, but I think a little bit more broadly we probably don t have a strategy as such (P 14). Similarly, P 15 agreed that the current strategies implemented by council are not sufficient, but they are however, going to do a proper social media strategy that provides some more strategic direction in the future because it is somewhat ad hoc at times. (P 15) Furthermore, participants in the same council have provided conflicting answers to this question. The responses were diverse including (a) positive (yes, the council has implemented a strategy), (b) negative (no, the council has not implemented a strategy yet), and (c) neutral (there is a strategy, but it is not implemented, or this is not my role). For example, a positive response was forthcoming from P 2 stressing that council had implemented a social media strategy: We have, there is a social media strategy that we have developed. It was only developed at the end of last year, and it does call upon all of those things, and interaction and opening it up (P 2). A negative response was given by P 4: We haven t done any [social media strategy] yet, but that will definitely be something we ll be looking at in the next 12 months I would say we re at a point where we re actually developing those strategies how we re going to get there, it s harder for me to tell you right now because we re actually developing those strategies at the moment (P 4). A neutral answer was given by P 7: We have some years ago, or I should say we ve drafted one [strategy]. If I recall we actually haven t had it fully endorsed by council (P 7) Evaluation methods in use The third area explored in order to clarify local governments aims toward public value creation is how Victorian local governments are/will evaluate their implementation of online services and their use of social media tools to interact with their constituents. Participants clearly expressed their lack of knowledge about how to realise the benefits of council investments regarding technologies. For example, P 10 answered I don t know. My personal evaluation is whether too many people are saying nasty things to 106

123 me? No? I don t know. I might have to leave that one a little bit for the experts. We re in a growing phase (P 10). Similarly P 11 answered I honestly think that evaluation is probably one of the hardest things for us to do because we can t transfer it into sales well, I don t know. Who knows? How do you do that evaluation? (P 11). However, while participants acknowledged the difficulty of evaluating Gov 2.0 initiatives implemented, they suggested many evaluation methods, which vary from quantitative to qualitative measures. It is worthwhile mentioning here that some of the proposed factors that need to be evaluated are public values such as responsiveness, citizen-involvement, and trust. Yet, the proposed methods are mainly quantitative and have not been approved by councils to assess their implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives. All in all, the answers as cited below show that council officials and administrators think that social media tools are the best way to evaluate Gov 2.0 initiatives. The quantitative measures proposed were mainly about monetary value and the quantity of user actions (e.g. like-minded comments and users redirected to the council web page) or by using KPI report factors or through surveys. For example, when P 16 asked how to measure the value of your services (not in a monetary value), the response was: I do not believe you get a return on investment at this point; I think if you really look at it, you can probably weigh up the money we spend on face-to-face services compared with the amount of money we spend on e-services, and I would suggest we should probably spend less on online services than we do face to face (P 16). This type of answer shows that council is concentrating on monetary values, especially given the researcher asked the participant about her view on non-monetary values. Similarly, council s view on how to evaluate council s success in using social media tools to communicate with residents also related to quantitative measures, as noted by P 18: I think it is one of the big and yet completely unresolved challenges for social media that measuring success is quite difficult. There are some fairly naive measures that can be used which are the number of followers we ve got on Facebook and Twitter. I would be looking at the amount of interaction that we 107

124 have on both those platforms. So the number of comments, the number of interactions we re having with that and perhaps some sentiment analysis of those responses and those interactions within the organisation as far as who s responding and how quickly they re responding and things like that. (P 18) Furthermore, P 18 is not sure how to quantify the measures he suggests, saying I think the difficulty is that the quantitative measures are still difficult and difficult to develop (P 18). P13 appears to be interested in evaluating factors related to the council daily activity quantitatively without linking these factors to any of the factors identified as the councils motivations. P 13 suggests assessing the number of residents attending events who have been invited through social media tools, the number of user posts and likes on Facebook, and the number of users redirected to council web pages and other e-services. This participant brought all these factors together: For example, promoting events, you could say if more people came to events because you advertised events on Facebook, for the Arts Centre, promoting events, people reviewing events, liking events. The number of items actually posted on Facebook, the number of responses you get to items. If you set it up to redirect to council pages, how many hits you get to go from there. Is there an increase in hits on certain areas of the website? There s other areas we could do. (P13) Similarly, P 4 concentrated on how to improve the effectiveness of new technologies to justify council s need to implement these new technologies, questioning quantitative measures (e.g. the number of likes that council s Facebook page received). P 4 began by saying that s probably one of the hardest things with social media, is to evaluate exactly how effective it is, and to get people to see the value in it (P 4), and followed up by combining the monitoring process with evaluation, as follows: I definitely think that we re going to have to go down the line of looking at some of the monitoring tools and things that are out there, because otherwise we won t be able to say to our councillors what benefit there has been. To say that we ve had this many likes doesn t really evaluate how successful your social media is. (P 4) 108

125 The qualitative measures suggested were mainly about closing the social divide gap, service provision, citizen participation, citizen trust, engagement, and council responsiveness. For instance, P 2 thinks residents in some council areas are more involved in using these tools and services, and thus, closing the social divide gap between council areas and level of service provision: I would say that a critical thing to look at is how we have broken down the social divide that exists around media...have we enabled this service provision to a greater number of people, that wouldn t have it otherwise? So I think it s how we bridge that divide which is the real critical factor that should be assessed (P 2). P 9 and 10 suggested factors such as citizen participation, engagement, service provision, and their responses indicated: We would hopefully have had more citizens engaged with our social media platforms, and we would have more services to be utilised through social media. (P 9), and Well, I m not sure I reckon that we ll be able to evaluate this is just simply because of people s participation, just coming online, having the conversations and tumbling to things, and also how well we respond to other ideas or needs that pop up. (P 10) P 15 highlighted the importance of evaluating some values indirectly (e.g. citizen participation and trust): Yeah, are more people choosing to participate and communicate with us in that way, or are they purely just getting the information, and that s it, but not providing feedback? So that would be the key one and then trust after that. They re the two things (P 15). 5.5 LOCAL GOVERNMENT VIEWS TOWARD EXAMINED PUBLIC VALUES Despite the fact that creating public value was not articulated as a motivator for Victorian local governments to implement Gov 2.0 initiatives; most of the values identified in this study framework as indicators have been articulated by interviewees. Expressing these values is a significant and clear indication that councils are attempting 109

126 to create many values. Some values have been expressed exactly as in the study framework, while others have been referred to with different expressions. For example, values expressed indirectly include: citizen involvement (expressed as citizen participation, communicate with residents, and engagement), friendliness (expressed as humanise and preferred means of communication), listening to public opinion (expressed as to find out what residents think), and user democracy (expressed as to obtain residents feedback). Thus values emphasised by interviewees directly and indirectly are: responsiveness, user democracy, citizen involvement, self-development, dialogue, listening to public opinion, openness, professionalism, accountability, adaptability, reliability, timeliness, friendliness, user orientation, equity, and social cohesion. Yet, interviewees have not expressed any clear statements about honesty, integrity, stability, robustness, fairness, public interest, and common good. Tables 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6 provide examples of participants views related to the values proposed in the study framework (i.e. development of public trust, quality of public services delivered, and social outcomes respectively). 110

127 Table 5.4: Examples of local government officials and administrators views toward development of public trust Area of public value Development of public trust 1. To me it s an easier mode of giving more information. So I think that builds trust because a lot of mistrust is based on the fact that they just don t know (P 16) 2. I think if we make it easier for them to participate in public life, then the prejudices of being shut out and illinformed, trust will grow. (P 17) 3. Trying to get back to them and give them information quickly is always helping the trust (P 18) Public value Responsiveness: 1. It does give people a very quick and very immediate response which I think helps them no end. (P 18) 2. For emergency management and for event updates and things like that, the online social media engagement provides us with an immediately that we don t have in any other platform. (P 15) User democracy: 1. I really appreciate it when I do get that feedback because that helps me It s helpful to have an outsider s perspective and to get that feedback and then work out is it possible for a start (P 11) Citizen involvement: 1. Yeah, definitely. I think that it s a great tool to be able to give some of those people who might be less likely to voice their opinion, an opportunity to. (P 4) 2. Certainly engagement, because people are familiar a lot of people use Facebook so they know how to use it. They can access Like pages, make comments, that sort of stuff, set up events or come to events. (P 13) Self-development: In going back to we re here to keep our residents informed, and well informed I think just providing people with more information, I think it s creating a more informed community, a more educated community, educated about local issues. (P 5) Dialogue: 1. Yeah, look, the goal is greater interaction. Being able to have greater interaction means greater information is shared, that develops greater trust amongst the community (P 2) 2. Social media opens up this whole other avenue for communication so it also adds you into that sort of conversation in that realm. (P 17) Listening to public: Because I think it helps a conversation to happen and social media is all about you know being able to say something can be heard, and to have council being in mix of all of that, I think is really good. I think that improves trust and yeah I think it does just for the fact people can be open and once, and know what they say has being heard, because it is on the wall or it is actually a part of the consultation process (P 12) Openness: 1. Yeah, I think if you have that ability for people to go there and talk to you online, and then you respond online, it creates the whole thing about transparency. I think it s a good thing. Having stuff online can only help. (P 5) Professionalism: Enhancing the trust well I talked about trust before and I also think its confidence. I don t necessarily have to trust my local councillor/council or anything like that, but I have to have confidence that they are going to do the right thing and that confidence may grow into a trust, and I think they are all valuable things. (P 10) Honesty (not mentioned) Integrity (not mentioned) Accountability: They might be more informed and feels though their views are been heard, because they visible this way the whole world can see their comments, its open, it is transparent, people are open to criticise Council or criticise something council s doing and everybody can see it, not just me so I think it is much more open and transparent, it keeps us more accountable, and it also means to be very responsive to those people and not just ignore them or just go ohhh that is too hard. (P 12) 111

128 Table 5.5: Examples of local government officials and administrators views toward quality of public services delivered Area of public value Quality of public services delivered 1. Yeah I think the things that I have said before about it saves people s time, makes things easier, faster, yeah and the fact that people know that they being heard and listened to, yeah absolutely contributes to the overall performance of council (P 12) 2. The mechanism to feed that feedback back into the organisation and respond and rapidly respond, then yeah, definitely the service level will improve (P 18) Public value Adaptability: 1. I think, to our mind, customer service is about providing services that are simple and easy for people to access, giving them options. Delivering things online gives them two key options. One is out-of-hours service, 24 hour self-help; and not being location based, so you can do it from anywhere. I think those in particular can be very beneficial. (P 7) 2. I think the nature of the format of social media between being somewhat part way between a personal conversation and written communication actually provides a good space where people can interact quite rapidly, which I think is one of the problems with formal communication structures (P 18) Reliability: 1. providing really good and adequate tools for our community, to be able to get things done that they want to do. I m sure that the number of people who are using our services are growing all the time. The popularity of activities and things is, I think, a testament to it. (P 10) 2. We want to be able to give the right information. We want to make sure that it s up to date. We want to make sure that people do not go away from it. (P 11) Stability: (not mentioned) Timeliness: 1. We can t actually help you very quickly, rather than waiting for two weeks for a letter or an reply able to reply to that again in fairly immediate time. (P 18) 2. Main factor, convenience, and timeliness.you could definitely achieve better and more timely information. (P 5) Robustness: (not mentioned) Friendliness: 1. What effectively we re trying to do is make our online services as user friendly and interactive so that if you re that way inclined you can do that, you can go online (P 3) 2. We re trying out these things and we want to make sure that people are actually enjoying them and actually engage and actually find it useful (P 11) User orientation: 1. Whereas online provides you with the opportunity to send everything you think you should send, to a receiver that hopefully is happy to receive it and then in their own time could digest the information and then get back to them with questions or follow-up. So it s offering another way to service a client if you like, or service a rate payer in a way that best suits their needs. (P 15) 2. So they key their address and our GIS system works behind the scenes and checks what s around that address and provides information in terms of key child care, libraries whatever the key interest to the residents. So we re using information that we ve already got, like in our GIS system, and enhancing that experience for our residents, providing better value. (P 14) 112

129 Table 5.6: Examples of local government officials and administrators views toward achievements of social outcomes Area of public value Social Outcomes 1. So it s not just about the utilitarian stuff. It s about how I live my life and if we add something to people s capacity to have an easy life that might be the big one. But I think residents are gradually more and more finding out that they can access things through council, online and make things easier for themselves (P 10) 2. I d like to think that if we offered the Have your say function for example on the website, people feel like they ve got the opportunity to contribute to a master plan of their local park for example, and if they come back and they see their input integrated within the ideal solution that s implemented, yes, it s a positive outcome for everybody and the outcome is achieved, that our e-services have contributed to that partnership and that contribution which is ultimately what we should be seeking on most things we do. So, I guess I would say yes, that I would think overall our e-services do contribute to changes in the community (P 15) Public value Fairness: (not mentioned) Equity: 1. That s why online services are so beneficial, because you actually can provide a more equitable service out to a lot of people, than just if you just have little newsletters or whatever. (P 3) 2. I think the issue is that a lot of them are also convenient for people who maybe have some sort of motor disability that makes it hard for them to leave the home, and other factors that make transport difficult for people, that social media can actually overcome that (P 18) 3. But I think it s definitely an opportunity to get more feedback from people and a broader range of feedback, which makes the position councils take more informed and better able to argue, and better able to indicate community support, in that if there are decisions we re making that are not popular with one group. (P 18) Social cohesion: 1. Whereas I think the Facebook type thing, the Twitter, all that sort of stuff, I think especially the younger generation increasingly uses it as a mode of finding out everything. (P 16) 2. Ultimately I would quite like the council to be helping community groups build online communities through council (P 18) 3. We are looking to improve community engagement opportunities online (P 6) 4. There s that, but also closing the gap between actual citizens In the sense that you can get a whole community of 2,000 people who live in separate houses, and not see each other, but through a social media platform they become connected. (P 9) Public interest: (not mentioned) Common Good: (not mentioned) 113

130 5.6 DISCUSSION Phase 1 interviews produced a number of findings which clarified the aims government officials have in implementing Gov 2.0 initiatives to enforce public value. Based on interview analysis, it was found that the creation of public value as identified in the study framework was not a motivator for Victorian local governments to implement Gov 2.0 initiatives, and they are not aiming to create it as such. However, the analysis also found that many of the values included in the study framework are in the focus of daily activities of Victorian local governments. These findings are categorised and discussed in the following sub-sections Local government aim towards public value creation This section discusses the findings from three questions used by the researcher (see section 5.4) to ascertain whether Victorian local governments are aiming to create public value. These questions investigated a) local governments motivations behind the implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives, b) strategies implemented for using Gov 2.0 initiatives, and c) how governments evaluate their efforts in implementing and using these initiatives. The conclusion, articulated from participants responses, indicate that Victorian local governments do not have a direct aim to create public value, which has been identified in the study framework. In their answers to the first question, none of the participants mentioned the creation of public value as a motivator behind the implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives. Moreover, participants have not linked the importance of implementing Gov 2.0 initiatives in their councils to public value creation. This clearly indicates that participants do not have knowledge about the topic (public value), and therefore do not work towards creating it. This interpretation was sustained by interviewees answers to the second question concerning the strategies implemented for using Gov 2.0 initiatives. Participants responses show that none of the councils implemented a strategy that included the use of Web 2.0 technologies, or any of its platforms (e.g. social media tools). Participants provided conflicting answers regarding the strategy implemented. These answers are clearly reflecting councils vagueness, not only towards the creation of public value, but also the creation and implementation of any value in a planned way using Web 2.0 technologies. 114

131 Interviewees answers to the third question were similar concerning how governments evaluate their efforts in implementing and using Gov 2.0 initiatives. Despite the fact that some participants realised and highlighted the need for new methods to evaluate intangible benefits of the implementation of these new technologies, most of the answers appear as a consequence of improper implementation of the e-service strategy. This indicates that Victorian local governments are totally unclear as to how to evaluate these initiatives. Building on what can be understood from participants about why it is important for their local governments to implement and use Web 2.0 technologies, the type and level of e- service strategies implemented, and how they proposed evaluating their councils implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives, it can be concluded that Victorian local governments are not creating public value as indicated in the study framework. However, there are signs that suggest Victorian local governments are trying to get intangible values from their implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives, which might create unintentional public value for council residents who use these initiatives. These signs include (a) the realisation of the importance of assessing intangible benefits, (b) the suggestion of some public values as areas worthy of evaluation, and (c) stating and emphasising most public values identified in the study framework during interviews. Overall, the findings show a number of motivations behind local governments adoption and implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives that can be directly linked to the public values proposed in the study framework. From the 23 examined values in the framework, 10 were indicated by participants as motivators for the implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives. These values include professionalism, adaptability, responsiveness, citizen involvement, dialogue, listening to public opinion, social cohesion, openness, friendliness, and reliability (see table 5.7). Six relate to the development of public trust (professionalism, dialogue, citizen involvement, listening to public opinion, responsiveness, and openness), three values relate to quality of public services provided (friendliness, adaptability, and reliability), and only one value relates to achievement of social outcomes (social cohesion). 115

132 Table 5.7: Public values behind the implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives Motivations Relation to public value a) meet citizens expectations Professionalism b) preferred method of communication between residents Friendliness c) provide them with a more convenient means of service Adaptability d) another avenue of communication Professionalism e) a quick means of communication, especially during the consultation process Responsiveness, citizen involvement, dialogue f) to find out what residents think about the council Listening to public g) to humanise the council Social cohesion h) useful in disasters Responsiveness, professionalism i) a useful communication tool to target specific groups Citizen involvement j) a part of residents engagement in social media Citizen involvement, dialogue k) to obtain residents feedback Listening to public l) makes council more transparent Openness m) a flexible way of communication with residents Friendliness n) direct Adaptability o) adaptable Adaptability p) allows for remote communication Reliability q) useful instead of the traditional means of communication Professionalism r) a written way of communicating Reliability s) accessing new residents, mainly youth Citizen involvement t) a response to the pressure to follow other councils who implemented these tools Not related Victorian local governments lack of clear e-service strategies that include Web 2.0 technologies, their uncertainty on the usefulness of these tools and, how to measure the value of implementation and use is not unanticipated. These findings concur with the literature where the use of these tools is considered a new wave of service delivery within government (Mergel, 2012). And local governments are still at the stage where they need to measure outcomes from these engagement methods (Svara & Denhardt, 2010) Values in line with local government activities The previous section suggested Victorian local governments are not working towards creating public value as identified in the study framework. The findings also suggest that they are working towards the creation of many public values included in the evaluation framework without directly aiming to do so. This suggestion is supported by participants views including a) the realisation of the importance of evaluating 116

133 intangible benefits of Gov 2.0 initiatives, and b) most values identified in the study framework have been mentioned and stressed by participants. As previously mentioned, many of these public values were articulated either directly or indirectly by interviewees. From the 23 examined values, 17 were found to be in line with local governments to be developed comprising dialogue, responsiveness, citizen involvement, openness, listening to public opinion, adaptability, timeliness, friendliness, accountability, professionalism, reliability, user democracy, user orientation, equity, social cohesion, self-development, and stability. Yet, six values were not including honesty, integrity, robustness, fairness, common good, and public interest. The values mentioned are related to the three main areas of public value creation, as articulated in the study framework (see section 3.2) and include development of public trust in government, quality of public services delivered, and achievement of social outcomes. How participants think the implemented Gov 2.0 initiatives can contribute to creating these values is discussed in the following minor sub-sections Development of public trust in government Development of public trust in government is one of the main sources of public value (Moore, 1995; Kelly et al., 2002; Kearns, 2004). This area includes a number of values including responsiveness (Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006; Gauld et al., 2009), user democracy (Goldfinch, 2009), citizen involvement (Christensen & Lægreid, 2005), selfdevelopment (Roberts, 2002), dialogue (Grabner-Kräuter, 2009; Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012), listening to public opinion (Yang, 2005), openness (Persson, 2000), professionalism (Misuraca, 2012), honesty (Ulbig, 2004), integrity (Keele, 2007), and accountability (Bozeman, 2002). The findings indicate the development of public trust in government was not a motivator for implementing Gov 2.0 initiatives by Victorian local governments. Though participants stressed the importance of using Gov 2.0 platforms to increase government professionalism, dialogue, citizen involvement, listening to public opinion, responsiveness, and openness, none of the participants mentioned public trust as a motivator or linked it to any of the motivations articulated. However, improving public trust in government was mentioned by interviewees a few times on different occasions during interviews. Participants were of the view that providing citizens with more information and facilitating their participation in public life using these new initiatives would help their council improve citizens trust. These views show how local 117

134 governments do not realize the potential offered to them by these tools, which contribute directly to council development of citizens trust. Interestingly, honesty and integrity were the only two values not mentioned by participants. Local government officials realised the importance of implementing Gov 2.0 initiatives to become more responsive. They articulated this as one of the motivators for such implementation. Participants have clearly highlighted that their use of these initiatives offered the ability to provide citizens with immediate and rapid response (Boyd & Ellison, 2007; Joinson, 2008), especially during emergencies and disasters. Local governments also recognised that these tools can be used to improve user democracy by obtaining feedback. However, this view does not include the use of Gov 2.0 initiatives as a tool to empower citizens and provide them with an innovative role in public service delivery and governance activities, as argued by (Osimo, 2008). The usefulness of citizens involvement was acknowledged by interviewees. The findings show that local governments are aiming to use Gov 2.0 initiatives to engage their citizens in both online and council activities. Governments know that by implementing these initiatives they are providing their citizens with a great opportunity to voice their opinion online, especially those who might be less likely to do so. They also expect that the use of social media tools such as the Facebook will help their citizens to engage more through commenting on council posts, setting up events and, inviting other citizens to attend. These views correspond with Cresswell et al. (2006) view that citizen involvement is for better participation in the democratic practice of government. Local governments intent to use Gov 2.0 initiatives to improve their citizens self-development is evident by keeping citizens well informed. By doing so, local governments think they will create a more informed community, and consequently a more educated one, especially regarding local issues. Victorian local governments are of the view that Gov 2.0 initiatives, mainly social media tools, are great platforms for interaction (dialogue) where information can be shared easily, as noted by Grabner-Kräuter (2009). The potential utilisation of Gov 2.0 initiatives as a platform for listening to public opinion is one of the Victorian local government motivators to implement these tools. The local governments think these platforms facilitate a conversation. Thus it is a useful tool for citizens who can easily realise what they have said on these tools is being heard, because it is on the wall or it is a part of the consultation process where everyone can see and become involved. 118

135 Citizens ability to interact with council officials and to see the whole conversation taking place by everyone on social media is how Victorian local governments are improving their councils openness using Gov 2.0 tools. Victorian local governments see professionalism as confidence their citizens have in their council officials to do the right thing, and they believe councils implementation and use of Gov 2.0 initiatives will facilitate professionalism (Misuraca, 2012). The findings also revealed that Victorian local governments expect their implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives will keep them more accountable. Participants have highlighted a number of ways that these initiatives can contribute to improving such accountability: these platforms will help citizens to become more informed, more heard, and enable them to criticise council via open platforms where other citizens can contribute to making local government more accountable. They also acknowledge that these initiatives are providing them with tools for a quick response to their citizens criticisms and concerns to support justifications and accountability (Sadeghi et al., 2012) Improving the quality of public services The quality of public service delivery is one of the key drivers of public value (Kelly et al., 2002; Kearns, 2004). This area concerns public value citizens perceive from technical functionality to support and deliver Gov 2.0 services (Meynhardt (2009). In this framework, values that contribute to the delivery of quality public services through Gov 2.0 include adaptability (Delone & Mclean, 2004), reliability (Delone & Mclean, 2004), stability (Berry, 1995), timeliness (Wixom & Todd, 2005), robustness (Zhang & Prybutok, 2005), friendliness (Papadomichelaki & Mentzas, 2009) and user orientation (Misuraca, 2012). The findings indicate that the quality of public services delivered was not a motivator for implementing Gov 2.0 initiatives by Victorian local governments. And though participants have expressed three values related to quality public service (adaptability, friendliness, and reliability), they have not readily related the implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives to improving such quality of public services. However, this aspect was mentioned by interviewees occasionally during interviews. Participants are of the view that council implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives will contribute overall performance. And further, these initiatives will help citizens obtain council services easier and faster. 119

136 Stability and robustness, as previously mentioned, were the only two values not mentioned. This indicates that local governments do not realise the potential of Gov 2.0 in improving stability and robustness. Participants have highlighted the usefulness of these initiatives in terms of improving councils service adaptability. They are of the view that providing their citizens with services through these initiatives will ease access to such services (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008) with 24/7 self-help without being location based. Local governments also think these initiatives offer reliable platforms to serve their communities where citizens will be able to access correct and updated information. Participants have highlighted the timeliness factor of services provided by being able to reply to their citizens inquiries using these tools in fairly immediate time (P 18). Victorian local governments attempt to provide their citizens with user-friendly services, and believe that Gov 2.0 initiatives will enhance the friendliness of their online services. This is another way of serving their citizens that best suits their needs (Osimo et al., 2010). Thus citizens who access these initiatives have more options to choose from and services are customised to suit their preferences Achievement of social outcomes Social outcomes is another significant driver of public value (Kelly et al., 2002; Kearns, 2004). There are five values that contribute to the achievement of social outcomes via Gov 2.0 including fairness (Karunasena & Deng, 2012), equity (Kelly et al., 2002), social cohesion (Hariche et al., 2011), public interest (Sreedharan et al., 2011), and common good (Meynhardt, 2009). Achievement of social outcomes was not identified as the main motivator for the implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives. And yet participants have stressed social cohesion, related to social outcomes. However, the achievement of social outcomes was mentioned by interviewees on different occasions. Participants perceive that implementation of Gov 2.0 initiatives by councils will contribute to social outcomes. From the five aforementioned values, participants have offered their views on how councils uptake of Gov 2.0 initiatives can contribute to equity and social cohesion. Fairness, public interest and, common good are values that have not been mentioned by participants. 120

137 Local government officials have realised the importance of implementing Gov 2.0 initiatives to provide more equitable services to citizens. Participants have clearly highlighted that these initiatives have provide citizens with convenient services. This convenience will help citizens who maybe have some sort of motor disability or other factors related to transport difficulties they need to overcome. These initiatives will allow diverse community groups to participate and this means councils decisions will not necessarily be popular with any one group. Social cohesion offers greater opportunities to engage with youths who increasingly use social media tools. Thus these initiatives can help community groups build online communities through councils to bring citizens together and keep them connected, as stressed by Hariche et al. (2011). 121

138 5.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY Phase 1 concluded that Victorian local governments are not aiming to create public value as indicated in the study framework. This is about the ways in which Public officials and elected councillors think about the main motivators to implement and utilise Web 2.0 technologies, the type and level of e-service strategies implemented, and the way they evaluate their councils implementation and use of Gov 2.0 initiatives. However, this phase suggests clear signs that Victorian local governments create unintentional public value for those who use Gov 2.0. These signs include (a) realisation of the importance of assessing intangible benefits, (b) the suggestion that some public values are worth evaluating, and (c) stating and emphasising most public values identified in the study framework by interviewees. The findings also suggest that local governments are working towards the creation of many public values (development of public trust in government, quality of public services delivered, and achievement of social outcomes) without directly aiming to do so. From the 23 examined values, 17 included dialogue, responsiveness, citizen involvement, openness, listening to public, adaptability, timeliness, friendliness, accountability, professionalism, reliability, user democracy, user orientation, equity, social cohesion, self-development, and stability. Six values included honesty, integrity, robustness, fairness, common good, and public interest. The latter values were of less concern to local governments. 122

139 Chapter 6: Survey Questionnaire with Citizens (Phase 2) 6.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents findings from the online survey questionnaire (Phase 2) on citizens perceptions of their local government use of Gov 2.0 initiatives. This phase of data collection began after the researcher gained full knowledge about public value creation. Both results gained from interviews and themes suggested by the literature review and articulated in the study framework have been used as input for the development of the survey questionnaire. The objective of this phase is to answer the second question: What public values do citizens perceive from using Gov 2.0 initiatives? Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was used to analysis the sample data collected through an online survey. The Confirmatory Factor Analyse (CFA) was used to validate the fitness of the hypothesised research framework into the sample data (Byrne, 2010). This chapter is structured as follows: section (6.2) reports on the survey development procedures, followed by a discussion of the data collection method used (section 6.3). This is followed by illustration and discussion of data analysis in section 6.4. Section 6.5 describes the development and analysis of the measurement model. The final section (6.6) provides the findings of this phase s survey questionnaire with end users (citizens), followed by the chapter summary. 6.2 SURVEY DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES The results obtained from this research phase will inform both the second research subquestion and Phase 3 of the study. A web-based survey was applied to collect the quantitative data. Using an online survey over a paper-based survey was influenced by many factors (Evans & Mathur, 2005): it is easier to deliver, cheaper, response rates are faster, and data can be handled and analysed quicker. These features can save the researcher considerable time and effort that can be invested for further investigation. 123

140 Furthermore, using an online survey is more appropriate and easier to target potential participants who are supposedly online users for their council s Gov 2.0 initiatives. Online surveys can be very effective if the main procedures for the paper-based survey are followed such as: pre-testing the questions before running the survey, attaching a clear introduction, separating extended surveys into sections, and encouraging participation by offering incentives (Dillman et al., 1998; Gaddis, 1998). Closed-ended questions were chosen over open-ended questions to be implemented within the survey for the following reasons: participants answer the questions more reliably compared to being provided with open-ended questions (Malhotra et al., 1996), and it is easier and quicker for participants to answer (de Vaus, 2002). To make it easier for participants to indicate their level of agreement, Likert scales were used. Academics highlighted many advantages for using the Likert scale in surveys including: ease of use by the researcher, simple to complete by the participant (Neuman, 1997), and its ability to generate reliable and valid results (Spector, 1992). Finn (1972) and Nunnally (1978) advised that reliability and validity of the Likert scale can be enhanced by increasing the scale points; however, they found that the seven point scale is most suitable for achieving reliability and validity. Thus, the seven point scale was used as follows: Strongly agree = 1 Agree = 2 Slightly agree = 3 Neutral = 4 Slightly disagree = 5 Disagree = 6 Strongly disagree = 7 Following the theoretical framework guiding this study, the survey was designed to contain four main sections (see Appendix E). The first section was designed to gather some related demographic data about the participants and their use of Gov 2.0 initiatives. The next three sections were designed to investigate participants perceptions of Council use of Gov 2.0 initiatives within the three main source areas of public value (public trust in government, quality of public services, social outcomes). Table 6.1 depicts the question numbers linked to each examined value in the survey. 124

141 Table 6.1: Survey questions linked to the values and areas investigated Area Trust Values Question sentence: As a resident, I think the use of social media by council officials and councillors Responsiveness Q5. makes the council respond quicker. User democracy Q6. offers me with a new channel to have my opinion taken into account. Citizen involvement Q7. encourages me to get involved in council matters. Self-development Dialogue Listening to public Openness Professionalism Honesty Integrity Q8. helps me to form a consensus of opinion. Q9. enhances the dialogue between me and the council. Q10. helps me to have my opinion heard by the council. Q11. makes the council more open and transparent. Q12. helps the council to provide services in a more professional way. Q13. can make them more honest. Q14. enhances the integrity of the council. Accountability Q15. can make them more accountable. Adaptability * Q17. As a resident, I think social media tools are an easy way to communicate with the council officials and councillors. Reliability *Q18. As a resident, I think the social media tools used by the council officials and Councillors are reliable. Stability *Q19. As a resident, I think the social media tools used by the council officials and councillors are stable tools. *Q20. As a resident, I think the social media tools used by the council Timeliness officials and councillors provide me with very quick means to communicate with them. Robustness *Q21. As a resident, I think the social media tools used by the council officials and councillors are robust tools. Friendliness * Q22. As a resident, I think the social media tools used by the council officials and councillors are user-friendly tools. *Q23. As a resident, I think the social media tools used by the council User orientation officials and councillors can be easily customised to suit my preferences. Fairness Q25. offers a good platform for fair treatment of residents. Equity Q26. enhances the equity between residents to access information and services. Social cohesion Q27. provides me with a sense of community. Public interest Q28. makes it possible for council residents to promote the public interest. Common good Q29. helps both the council and residents to work together for the common good. * The question sentence attached above does not apply to the question. Service Quality Social Outcomes The survey questions were also pre-tested before final implementation. This helped the researcher to gain clear observations about the reliability and validity of the data (Saunders et al., 2000). The survey questions were pre-tested by a group of experts as recommended by Saunders et al. (2000). The researcher amended the survey questions based on comments and suggestions from 11 pre-test survey participants. 125

142 6.3 DATA COLLECTION This section discusses the process to select the study sample, size of the sample, and survey distribution Sample selection This study aimed to examine the public value of Gov 2.0 at the local government level in Victoria, Australia and to approach those citizens who are using Gov 2.0 services. As discussed earlier in Chapter 4, the researcher targeted participants from local governments who provided the most advanced and similar Gov 2.0 services. In this phase, the researcher targeted Gov 2.0 users from the same four local governments that participated in the first phase. The survey questionnaire was distributed widely among a number of these local governments to potential participants of Gov 2.0 users via local government social media tools. The survey was advertised through each council s social media platform and took less than twenty minutes to complete. The four local governments invited their Gov 2.0 users to participate in the study survey via an invitation sent to their residents using council social media tools. The invitation included a linked to the survey. The survey invited participants to take part in the interviewing phase (Phase 3). The results gained from both previous investigations (A website analysis for study sample selection and phase 1 interviews with government officials) show that Victorian local governments are barely using social media tools to communicate and serve local businesses. Therefore, it is less likely to have respondents who might represent businesses instead of their personal experiences in their survey answers Sample size How to determine an adequate sample size has been discussed in many studies where certain formulas were proposed (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). However, the researcher found it difficult to employ any of the proposed formulas to determine the sample size. This difficulty was due to the nature of this research, which targeted only those citizens who used Victorian Gov 2.0 services, where there was a lack of reliable published statistics on actual users of these initiatives. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012), a quarter of Australia s population (22,683.6) is located in Victoria (5,623.5). At the time date of conducting 126

143 this study, there was a lack of published statistics about the level of Victorian local government level of adoption of Gov 2.0 and social media, and the actual percentage of users of these initiatives. A study conducted by the researcher (Omar et al., 2012), however, shows that Facebook is the most used tool by Victorian local governments with 50 out of 79 councils (63%), 35 local governments (44 %) use Twitter, while 26% have a presence on YouTube and 24% use RSS. Flickr, with 11% adoption rate, is shown to be the least used tool by governments. In addition, the AGIMO report (AGIMO, 2012) indicates that Australian citizens use of social networking sites to contact all tiers of government increased from 36% in 2009 to 47% in This growth is mainly driven by those citizens who are under 55. The discussion above indicates the challenge in determining an adequate sample size for this study. Two main issues needed to be considered when determining an adequate sample size including a sufficient sample (Hair et al., 2006; Kaplan, 2009; Byrne, 2010), and an appropriate sample size for factor analysis (Netemeyer et al., 2003; Hair et al., 2006). Sufficient sample size is considered a very important factor for analysis using structural equation modelling (Hair et al., 2006; Kaplan, 2009; Byrne, 2010) and the sample size should be adequate to estimate the parameters and determine model fit. Structural equation modelling analysis in general requires a large sample size to obtain stable parameter estimates and standard errors (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). A general rule is that a sample size of is considered sufficient (Lewis et al., 2005) and any sample size within the range of is recommended (Hair et al., 2006). Kline (2005) suggested that, for structural equation modelling analysis, over 200 responses can be considered a large sample. For this research study, a total of 213 surveys were completed and submitted. This number of responses meets both, a sufficiently large sample size and the figure required for structural equation modelling factor analysis Survey respondents profile The first part of the survey gathers respondents demographic data and the purpose of using local government social media tools. The profiles of respondents (gender, age, education and motivations) are presented in tables 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5. Though, the total number of respondents was 213, only 206 responses were found to be valid for analyses, as will be discussed in the data screening section (6.4.1). As shown in table 127

144 6.2, the gender distribution of respondents was 66% females and 34% males. The largest age group was (47%), followed by (33%), and (13%). While respondents aged 16 years old and under made up the smallest group, representing only 7%, none of the respondents was over 70 years old, as can be seen in table 6.3. In terms of respondents education level, most (49%) respondents held a university degree, followed by those who finished high school (31%). The lowest educational level group was postgraduate level education with only 3 % as presented in table 6.4. Table 6.2: Survey participants gender Q1. My gender is Response Percent Response Count Male 34% 70 Female 66% 136 Table 6.3: Survey participants age group Q2. My age group is Response Percent Response Count Under 16 7% % % % % 0 Table 6.4: Survey participants education level Q3. My highest education qualification is Response (Percent) Response (Count) At high school 14% 29 Finished high school 31% 64 Bachelor's degree 49% 101 Master's degree 3% 6 Other 3% 6 The following table (6.5) details participants motivations behind their use of council websites. While the council Facebook pages are the preferred social media platform for 128

145 participants (95%), RSS is indicated as the least used by only 10% of respondents. YouTube platform is used by more than half of respondents (58%) followed by Twitter, used by 38% of respondents. Flicker (32%) and SMS (15%) social media tools were relatively evenly distributed. Table 6.5: Survey participants motivations behind their use of council websites Q4. I have used the following social media tools to interact with the council (check all that apply): Response Percent Facebook 95% 196 Twitter 38% 78 YouTube 58% 119 Flicker 32% 66 RSS 10% 21 SMS 15% 31 Other 1% 2 Response Count 6.4 DATA ANALYSIS In order to answer the second research question, Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) is used to test and validate this hypothesised theoretical model using the data collected from local governments in Victoria, Australia. SEM has many features that allow the research to conduct Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) tests where relationships between observed variables and latent variables are defined by the measurement model (Brown, 2006; Hair et al., 2006). CFA is mainly used to examine the validity and internal reliability of a theoretical model that is pre-defined and hypothesised by the researcher (Hair et al., 2006). To measure and validate the level of support of the sample data to the hypothesised theoretical model several Goodness of Fit (GOF) calculation indices are used (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004; Byrne, 2010). The IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software application, version 21 and the Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) was chosen for conducting the SEM analysis Data screening In order to obtain precise results from the SEM analysis, the researcher needs to apply specific data screening techniques (Cruz, 2009). These techniques include dealing with missing data (Kaplan, 2009), normal distribution of the dataset (Byrne, 2010), and 129

146 managing outliers, kurtosis, and skewness (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). Besides its ability to perform complex SEM analysis, this version of SPSS software combined with AMOS allows the researcher to conduct the dataset normality test, detect outliers, kurtosis and skewness, and generate descriptive statistics (Arbuckle, 2009). The next subsections (6.4.2 and 6.4.3) discuss the data screening techniques performed to ensure the hypotheses directing SEM analysis are met. Checking for missing data is the first step in the data preparation stage. This includes checking the datasets for any errors or omissions that could disturb the GOF measurements in SEM analysis (Kaplan, 2009). Even though, the data were downloaded directly from the online database, the researcher needs to perform the necessary checks to ensure all datasets are complete and accurate. The results show that out of 213 surveys, seven were partially completed. The detected incomplete surveys had been deleted from the dataset. The distribution frequency results show there were no errors in the datasets. There were 206 valid surveys that were complete, accurate and ready for SEM analysis Assessment for normality Evaluation of dataset normality is necessarily for the application of SEM analysis. The maximum likelihood (ML) parameter valuation assumes the data is continuous and normally distributed (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1986). Before the normality analysis is performed, it is necessary to address the potential problem of outliers, as they may have an undesirable effect on dataset normality distribution results (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). Outliers have extreme values compared to the rest of the dataset (Hair et al., 2006). The distribution of dataset skewness and kurtosis are also influenced by the existence of outliers in the dataset (Cruz, 2009). The perfect value for skewness and kurtosis that reflect the best normal distribution is zero (0). However, skewness and kurtosis scores are considered acceptable within the range -2 and +2 (Illinois State University, 2012). On the other hand, Pallant (2007) suggests that skewness and kurtosis are considered acceptable if lower than three (<3). Therefore, the data were checked prior to further analysis. The descriptive statistics were calculated including minimum value, maximum value, mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis. The frequency distribution tests including graphical histograms normality and boxplot methods were performed. The results showed there were few 130

147 outliers and those detected were deleted. Both skewness and kurtosis were weighed. The statistics show that most variables are within the acceptable range. In SPSS, data normality can be evaluated through the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) (Hair et al., 2006), and the Shapiro-Wilk tests (D'agostino et al., 1990). In this study, both tests were performed on the datasets. The results revealed show that the datasets depart from normality. All variables significance value returned These results reflect the abnormal distribution of data in datasets (Hair et al., 2006). Hence, bootstrapping technique supported by SPSS was used as suggested by Byrne (2010) and Kline (2005). This technique allows the researcher to generate subsamples of data within the original data sample to obtain accurate results by testing the model using multivariate normal distribution (Kline, 2005). For this test model, the researcher used the maximum likelihood (ML) estimation bootstrapping technique to handle data abnormality Reliability of the questionnaire There are several methods available to assess the reliability of the model construct (Malhotra & Birks, 2007). One is Cronbach s alpha (α) indicator, used to evaluate the questionnaire s internal consistency based on the average inter-item correlation (Coakes et al., 2006). In Cronbach s alpha model, the closer results to 1.0 are the greater reliability of variables tested, and values higher than 0.7 are considered acceptable (Hair et al., 1998). For the purpose of this study, the researcher performed Cronbach s alpha test on survey latent variables and those associated with them before the whole study model was assessed. Cronbach s alpha test results are presented in table 6.6 show that the values for all latent variables in the survey are above the suggested value of 0.7. These results indicated internal consistency of the model. 131

148 Table 6.6: Reliability of the Questionnaire latent variable Questionnaire items Cronbach s α value Public Trust Q5. Responsiveness Q6. User democracy Q7. Citizen involvement Q8. Self-development Q9. Dialogue Q10. Listening to public Q11. Openness Q12. Professionalism Q13. Honesty Q14. Integrity Q15. Accountability Service Quality Q17. Adaptability Q.18. Reliability Q19. Stability Q20. Timeliness Q21. Robustness Q22. Friendliness Q23. User orientation Social Outcomes Q25. Fairness Q26. Equity Q27. Social cohesion Q28. Public interest Q29. Common good 6.5 MEASUREMENT MODEL The first stage, defining the individual constructs, was conducted earlier during development of the research model discussed in Chapter 3. This research study developed a measurement model based on the theoretical framework plus the hypothesis developed and discussed in Chapter 3 (see section 3.2.4). The measurement model illustrated in figure 6.1 includes two levels of latent variables and one level of observed variable. The first level of the model includes the following observed variables: responsiveness, user democracy, citizen involvement, self-development, dialogue, listening to public opinion, openness, professionalism, honesty, integrity, accountability, adaptability, reliability, stability, timeliness, robustness, friendliness, user orientation, fairness, equity, social cohesion, public interest, and common good. The latent variables development of public trust in government (public trust), delivery of quality public services (service quality), and the achievements of social outcomes (social outcomes) are illustrated in the second level of the model. The latent variable public value of Gov 2.0 (Gov 2.0 PV) is illustrated in the third level of the model. 132

149 In CFA the latent variables (Gov 2.0 PV, public trust, service quality, and social outcomes) are measured indirectly through observed variables in the model (Kline, 2005; Byrne, 2010). These latent variables are case or reflect the observed variables as illustrated using the arrows from the latent variables to observed variables (Hair et al., 2006) (see figure 6.1). The 23 observed variables are loaded on latent variables. The first 11 observed variables (presented in rectangles) hypothesised to load on the latent variable public trust. The second group including seven observed variables are hypothesised to load on the latent variable service quality. The last group of five observed variables hypothesised to load on the latent variable social outcomes. All the observed variables are linked with a measurement error (e1 to e23). This indicates to what extent observed variable measures do not accurately reflect the latent variable they are loaded on (Hair et al., 2006; Holmes-Smith, 2006). The measurement model regression path is illustrated by unidirectional arrows from the Gov 2.0 PV latent variable to public trust, service quality, and social outcomes (Byrne, 2010). 133

150 Figure 6.1: Initial measurement model The inter-correlation between variables needs to be examined to ensure correlation levels between examined variables are within the recommended figures (Field, 2009). There are two statistical methods used to assess internal reliability of the model (Pallant, 2007): Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). EFA is statistically driven and loads all variables onto all latent variables, CFA is theoretically based (Cunningham, 2008). CFA evaluates variable loadings for those directly associated with that specific variable. In this research study, CFA is used to answer the confirmatory research question: What values do citizens perceive from using Gov 2.0 initiatives? 134

151 6.5.1 CFA of the full measurement model assessment of fit After the measurement model has been fit to the dataset, the CFA was executed in IBM- SPSS-AMOS to determine whether the hypothesised measurement fits the actual model. This step is very important in the data analysis process, since the precision of the structural model is reliant on correctly specified measurement models (Anderson & Gerbing, 1982). The Goodness-of-fit (GOF) indicates how well the specified model reproduces the covariance matrix among the indicator items (Hair et al., 2006, p. 745). A number of fit indices can be used to measure the validity of the whole model and its paths (Tanaka, 1993; Maruyama, 1997): a) Absolute fit indices show how good the estimated model replicates the collected data (Hair et al., 2006). They include: Chi-square (χ 2 ) which is a hypothesis assessment centred on a comparison of the proposed and alternate model; goodness of fit index (GFI) which assesses the ratio of variance and covariance of the projected model; the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) which assesses the error between the original and reproduced matrices (Hair et al., 2006; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2007); the root mean square residual (RMSR) and standardised root mean residual (SRMR) which assesses the average difference between the dataset and indirect correlations (Hair et al., 2006); and the normed Chi-square (χ 2 /df) (Cunningham, 2008). b) Incremental fit indices assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model (Hair et al., 2006, p. 749) where observed variables are uncorrelated. The incremental fit indices include: normal fit index (NFI) which represents the ratio of the difference in the χ 2 value for the fit model and a null model divided by the χ 2 value for the null model; comparative fit index (CFI) which is an enhanced version of the NFI (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004; Brown, 2006); Tucker- Lewis index (TLI) which predates the CFI; and relative non-centrality index (RNI) which compares the observed fit resulting from testing a specific model to that of a null model (Hair et al., 2006). c) Parsimony fit indices show if the model can be enhanced by identifying fewer estimated parameter paths including the parsimony goodness-of-fit (PGFI) which adjusts the GFI using the parsimony ratio (PR), and the parsimony normed fit index (PNFI) which adjusts the normed fit index of NFI (Hair et al., 2006). 135

152 Hair et al. (2006) affirmed that there is no agreement to which indices should be used or what are the acceptable cut-off values for fit indices. However, the authors recommended general guidelines to assist the researcher determining the acceptability of fit for the examined model such as use multiple indices from different types, and adjust the index cut-off values based on model characteristics (Hair et al., 2006). Therefore, the fit indices presented in table 6.7 (present cut-off values for different rules recommended through different sources) will be used as cut-off values to assess the model fit for this study. Table 6.7: Goodness-of-fit cut-off values Index Type Absolute fit indices Incremental fit indices Parsimony fit indices GOF Index Recommended Value Reference χ 2 (p P value higher (Hair et al., 2006) Value) than 0.05 χ 2 /df < 2.0 (Hair et al., 2010) RMSEA < 0.08 (Hair et al., 2006; Reisinger & Mavondo 2006) SRMR Close to 0.08 or (Hair et al., 2006) below GFI > 0.90 (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2006) RMR < 0.10 (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2006; Hair et al., 2006) CFI > 0.90 (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2006) TLI Close to 0.95 (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2006; Hair et al. 2006) AGFI Close to 0.95 (Schumacker and Lomax, 2004) The bootstrap ML estimation technique was used to estimate the whole measurement model in IBM-SPSS-AMOS to determine whether the hypothesised measurement fits the actual model. The statistics resulting from the GOF test shows the full measurement model does not meet acceptable levels of validity presented in table 6.7. The test results show that the χ 2 value was with a P value of and χ 2 /df value does not fit with acceptable figures (p= <0.05, χ 2 /df = <2.0) recommended by Hair et al. (2006) for sufficient fit. The other absolute fit indices of GOF results also indicated that the model does not fit the data. The model RMSEA value result with a PCLOSE value of do not fit the recommended level (RMSEA < 0.08 with a PCLOSE value > 0.05) (Hair et al., 2006; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2007). Similarly, the value of of GFI is far from the acceptable level (greater than 0.90) recommended by Reisinger and Mavondo (2007). All results shown for the incremental and parsimony fit indices confirm that the model does not adequately fit the data. The CFI (being at 0.661) is well below the 136

153 recommended figure (CFI >0.90) (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2007), and the TLI value (being at 0.662) should be close to 0.95 (the acceptable level) (Hair et al., 2006; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2007). Likewise, the parsimony fit indices AGFI value is far below the value (close to 0.95) recommended by Schumacker and Lomax (2004). The insufficient validity revealed results suggests that the model must be modified to meet the acceptable level of GOF indices. Each of the public value main constructs (public value areas) including public trust, service quality, social outcomes, and their associated observed variables were in turn validated and modified separately using CFA. The modification process follows Hair et al. (2006) suggested stages, starting with conducting the validity assessment for each one-factor congeneric measurement model, including convergent, discriminant, and factorial validity assessment, as detailed in the following sections Analysis of one-factor congeneric measurement models The following sub-section presents the steps and stages of analysis of one-factor congeneric measurement models used to test, modify and confirm each of the public value main constructs (public trust, service quality, and social outcomes) in order to modify the overall measurement model Public trust construct congeneric analysis As shown in figure 6.2, the one-factor congeneric model was developed for public trust. Initially, 11 observed variables (presented in rectangles) are loading on the reflective latent variable (public trust). These observed variables are responsiveness, user democracy, citizen involvement, self-development, dialogue, listening to public opinion, openness, professionalism, honesty, integrity, and accountability. Each variable is linked with a measurement error labelled from e1 to e11. In order to obtain the GOF statistics, the estimation for the initial one-factor congeneric measurement model for public trust was generated (figure 6.2). 137

154 Figure 6.2: Initial one-factor congeneric measurement model for public trust The validity of the public trust one-factor congeneric model was assessed using the ML estimation technique. The results obtained from the GOF test show that the one-factor congeneric model does not fit the dataset. The test results show that the χ 2 value was with a Bollen-Stine P value of and χ 2 /df value does not fit the acceptable figures (p= <0.05, χ 2 /df = <2.0) recommended by Hair et al. (2006) for sufficient fit. The other absolute fit indices of GOF results also indicated that the model does not fit the data. The RMSEA value result of with a PCLOSE value of does not fall within the recommended levels (RMSEA < 0.08 with a PCLOSE value > 0.05) (Hair et al., 2006; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2007). The TLI value of is lower than the acceptable level (close to 0.95) recommended (Hair et al., 2006; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2007). Likewise, the parsimony fit indices AGFI value with is far below the recommended value (close to 0.95) (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). However, the results for incremental fit indices CFI at is within the recommended range (CFI greater than 0.90) (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2007). Also, the absolute fit indices GFI value of is very close to the acceptable level (greater than 0.90) recommended by Reisinger and Mavondo (2007). Though, the incremental fit indices CFI is at an acceptable level and the absolute fit indices GFI is very close to recommended levels, the results obtained for other indices indicate that the model does not adequately fit the data and needs to be modified and retested. In order to re-examine and modify the model, the researcher followed the following diagnostic and modification procedures suggested by Hair et al. (2006) including: 138

155 Firstly, examine the standardised factor loading (SFL) of each observed variable to get rid of those irrelevant variables. To improve the model GOF, the variable that has a value of SFL less than 0.5 indicates that the variable does not explain the factor well and should be deleted (Hair et al., 2006). Secondly, examine the standardised residuals (SR) values. Standardised residuals are the difference between the observed and the estimated covariance terms (Kline, 2005). The SR value greater than ±2.58 represents a poor relationship affecting the overall model fit and the value greater than ±4.0 represents an improper degree of error that requires the deletion of the variable (Hair et al., 2006). Thirdly, conduct some modifications on the model based on the modification indices (MI). The MI values generated by AMOS are figures demonstrating the extent to which the model s χ 2 can be reduced if a single parameter is freely estimated (Hair et al., 2006). The authors suggest that GOF for the measurement model can be significantly increased by freeing the corresponding paths between parameters that have a value greater than 4.0. The modification indices (MI) values are helpful to investigate issues with specific variables in the model (Byrne, 2010; Hair et al., 2006). The examination and modification procedure for one-factor congeneric for public trust model starts with examining the SFLs as suggested by Hair et al. (2006). As shown in figure 6.2 and table 6.8, SFLs for indicator variables responsiveness (0.69), user democracy (0.68), citizen involvement (0.53), self-development (0.54), dialogue (0.70), listening to public opinion (0.77), openness (0.74), professionalism (0.61), honesty (0.37), integrity (0.38), and accountability (0.69). The obtained figures shows the SFLs values for honesty (0.37) and integrity (0.38) are below the recommend cut-off value (0.5) which indicates an issue in these indicator variables loading on latent factor Public Trust. 139

156 Table 6.8: The standardised factor loadings for the Public Trust Indicator variable Latent factor SFL estimate Responsiveness Public Trust.69 User Democracy Public Trust.68 Citizen Involvement Public Trust.53 Self-Development Public Trust.54 Dialogue Public Trust.70 Listening to Public Opinion Public Trust.77 Openness Public Trust.74 Professionalism Public Trust.61 Honesty Public Trust.37 Integrity Public Trust.38 Accountability Public Trust.69 MI values are obtained to confirm the deletion of the suspect variables (honesty and integrity). MI values suggest correlations between the errors e2 and e9, e3 and e8. Some authors suggest that GOF for the measurement model can be significantly increased by freeing the corresponding paths between parameters that have a value greater than 4.0. However, Hair et al. (2010) recommended that it should not always modify the model by depicting the correlation between errors. Therefore, the Standardised Residual (SR) diagnostic measure should be performed. The figures obtained show that the SR among indicator variables integrity and citizen involvement is (-3.318) and the indicator variables honesty and self-development is ( ) is higher than the recommended SR value ±2.58 (Hair et al., 2006). Given that a higher SR is associated with both indicator variables honesty and integrity and their SFLs are below 0.5, both these indicator variables become candidates for deletion. Therefore, both identified variables were deleted from the model. After honesty and integrity were both deleted, all SR values resulting from the model re-estimation were within the acceptable range as shown in table 6.9 and the model achieved acceptable figures of GOF. The obtained statistics of GOF show that the modified one-factor congeneric measurement model (public trust) satisfactorily fits the dataset where all of the indices were either within or close to cut-off values. 140

157 Table 6.9: Standardised residual among public trust construct observed variables Responsiveness User democracy Citizen Involvement Responsiveness.000 User democracy Citizen involvement Self-development Dialogue Listening to public Openness Professionalism Accountability Self-Development Dialogue Listening to Public Openness Professionalism Accountability The test results show that the χ 2 value was with a Bollen-Stine P value of and χ 2 /df value 2.056, which is very close to acceptable figures (p= <0.05, χ 2 /df = <2.0) for sufficient fit (Hair et al., 2006). The authors, however, stressed that when the dataset observation is under 250, and the model has from 12 to 30 observed variables the significant p value can result even with good fit (Hair et al., 2006, p. 753). The other absolute fit indices of GOF results also indicated that the model fit the data well. The model RMSEA value result of with a PCLOSE value of are at recommended levels (RMSEA < 0.08 with a PCLOSE value > 0.05) (Hair et al., 2006; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2007). The results for the incremental fit indices CFI at is within the recommended range (CFI greater than 0.90) (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2007). Also, the absolute fit indices GFI value of is very close to the acceptable level (greater than 0.90) recommended by Reisinger and Mavondo (2007). The TLI value at is at an acceptable level (close to 0.95) (Hair et al., 2006; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2007). Likewise, the parsimony fit indices AGFI value with is not far below the value (close to 0.95) recommended by Schumacker and Lomax (2004). Figure 6.3 illustrates the re-specified measurement model. The re-specified model of public trust is summarised in table

158 Figure 6.3: Re-specified one-factor congeneric measurement model of public trust Service quality construct congeneric analysis The one-factor congeneric model was developed for service quality. Initially, 7 observed variables (presented in rectangles) are loading on the reflective latent variable (service quality). These observed variables are adaptability, reliability, stability, timeliness, robustness, friendliness, and user orientation. Each variable is linked with a measurement error as shown in figure 6.4. In order to obtain the GOF statistics, the estimation for the initial one-factor congeneric measurement model for service quality was generated. The validity of the service quality one-factor congeneric model was assessed using the ML estimation technique. The results obtained from the GOF test show that the onefactor congeneric model does not fit the dataset. 142

159 Figure 6.4: Initial one-factor congeneric measurement model of service quality The test results show that the χ 2 value was with a Bollen-Stine P value of and χ 2 /df value does not fit the acceptable figures (p= <0.05, χ 2 /df = <2.0) recommended by Hair et al. (2006) for sufficient fit. The results for incremental fit indices CFI at is within the recommended range (CFI greater than 0.90) (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2007), and the absolute fit indices GFI value of is very close to the acceptable level (greater than 0.90) recommended by Reisinger and Mavondo (2007). The RMSEA value result of with a PCLOSE value of does not fall within the recommended levels (RMSEA < 0.08 with a PCLOSE value > 0.05) (Hair et al., 2006; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2007). The TLI value of is lower than the acceptable level (close to 0.95) recommended (Hair et al., 2006; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2007). Likewise, the parsimony fit indices AGFI value with is far below the recommended value (close to 0.95) (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). Though, the incremental fit indices CFI is at an acceptable level and the absolute fit indices GFI is very close to recommended levels, the results obtained for other indices indicate that the model does not adequately fit the data and needs to be modified and retested. The same procedures suggested by Hair et al. (2006) and followed earlier to examine the public trust congeneric model were employed to examine the validity of one-factor congeneric model for the latent factor service quality. The diagnosing and modification procedure for one-factor congeneric for service quality model starts with examining the SFLs. As shown in table 6.10, while the SFLs for all model indicator variables are over 143

160 the recommend cut-off value (0.5), the initial MI values resulting from the AMOS output show that the parameters (e5 <--> e14) have the highest value at However, it is not recommended to modify the model by depicting the correlation between errors to improve the model validity (Hair et al., 2010). Table 6.10: The standardised factor loadings for the service quality Indicator variable Latent factor SFL estimate Adaptability Service Quality.72 Reliability Service Quality.73 Stability Service Quality.51 Timeliness Service Quality.54 Robustness Service Quality.76 Friendliness Service Quality.76 User Orientation Service Quality.53 The figures obtained shows that the SR among indicator variables stability and user orientation is (4.046) which is higher than the recommended SR value ±2.58 by Hair et al. (2006). Given that a higher SR is associated with indicators variables stability and user orientation, the indicator variable stability becomes a candidate for deletion since it has the lowest loading SFL (0.51). Therefore, the stability variable was deleted from the model. After the stability variable was deleted, the model was re-estimated again to examine GOF improvements. The results obtained from the GOF test show that the model does not achieve acceptable figures of GOF as shown in table 6.7. The results obtained for other indices indicate that the model does not adequately fit the data and needs to be modified and retested. The new MI values show that the parameters (e6 <--> e7) are at with SR among indicator variables reliability and adaptability is (-3.947) which is lower than the recommended SR value ±2.58 by Hair et al. (2006). These results indicate the need to delete the adaptability indicator variable which has the lowest SFL (0.62) compared to the reliability indicator variable (0.68). Therefore, the adaptability variable was deleted from the model as well. 144

161 After stability and adaptability variables were both deleted, the SR values resulting from the re-specified model was within the acceptable range ±2.58 recommended by Hair et al. (2006) as shown in table 6.11 and the model achieved acceptable figures of GOF. The GOF statistics obtained show that the modified one-factor congeneric measurement model of service quality satisfactorily fit the dataset. Figure 6.5 illustrates the respecified measurement model. Table 6.11: Standardised residual among service quality construct observed variables Timeliness Reliability Robustness Friendliness User orientation User orientation.000 Friendliness Robustness Reliability Timeliness Figure 6.5: Re-specified one-factor congeneric measurement model of service quality The re-specified model results indicate that the χ 2 value was and Bollen-Stine P value of and χ 2 /df value is within the acceptable figure (χ 2 /df = <2.0) recommended for sufficient fit by Hair et al. (2006). The other absolute fit indices of GOF results also indicated that the model is a good fit. The model RMSEA value resulted with a PCLOSE value of are within the recommended levels (RMSEA < 0.08 with a PCLOSE value > 0.05) (Hair et al., 2006; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2007). The results for the incremental fit indices CFI at is within the recommended range (CFI greater than 0.90) (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2007). Also, the absolute fit indices GFI value of is at an acceptable level (close to 0.95) recommended by Reisinger and Mavondo (2007). The TLI value at is very close 145

162 to the recommended value (close to 0.95) by Hair et al. (2006) and Reisinger and Mavondo (2007). Likewise, the parsimony fit indices AGFI value with is very close to the value 0.95 recommended by Schumacker and Lomax (2004). Table 6.14 includes the GOF results for both initial and re-specified measurement models of service quality Social outcomes construct congeneric analysis The one-factor congeneric model was developed for social outcome. Initially, 5 observed variables are loading on the reflective latent variable (social outcome). These observed variables are fairness, equity, social cohesion, public interest, and common good. Each variable is linked with a measurement error as shown in figure 6.6. In order to obtain the GOF statistics, the estimation for the initial one-factor congeneric measurement model for social outcome was generated. Figure 6.6: Initial one-factor congeneric measurement model of social outcomes The one-factor congeneric model for social outcomes examination procedures followed those of public trust and service quality constructs. The examination procedures for social outcomes involved a termination of the original observed variable common good. As shown in figure 6.7 and table 6.12, the variable common good SFL value 0.39 is far below the recommended level (>0.5) recommended by Hair et al. (2006), indicating the latent factor is not well explained. Therefore, the variable common good was terminated to improve the GOF. 146

163 Table 6.12: The standardised factor loadings for the Social Outcome Indicator variable Latent factor SFL estimate Fairness Social Outcome.69 Equity Social Outcome.53 Social cohesion Social Outcome.57 Public interest Social Outcome.75 Common good Social Outcome.39 After the termination of common good, the model has achieved acceptable GOF levels as shown in table 6.7. The GOF statistics obtained show that the modified one-factor congeneric measurement model of social outcomes adequately fits the dataset. Figure 6.7 illustrates the re-specified measurement model. Figure 6.7: Re-specified one-factor congeneric measurement model of social outcomes The re-specified results show that the χ 2 value was with a degree of freedom 2 and Bollen-Stine P value of is above the recommended figure (p= <0.05) and χ 2 /df value is very close to the acceptable figure (χ 2 /df = <2.0) recommended for sufficient fit by Hair et al. (2006). The other absolute fit indices of GOF results also indicated the model fits well with the data. The RMSEA value resulted in with a PCLOSE value of 0.238, within the recommended levels (RMSEA < 0.08 with a PCLOSE value > 0.05) (Hair et al., 2006; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2007). The results for the incremental fit indices CFI at is within the recommended range (CFI >0.90) (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2007). Also, the absolute fit indices GFI value of is at an acceptable level (greater than 0.90) recommended by Reisinger and Mavondo (2007). The TLI value at meets the acceptable level (close to 0.95) recommended (Hair et al., 2006; Reisinger & Mavondo, 2007). Likewise, the parsimony fit indices AGFI value 147